Subject: [CCAMP] New Liaison Statement, "This field is required"

From: Liaison Statement Management Tool <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 08:58:15 -0700

Title: This field is required
Submission Date: 2014-03-22
URL of the IETF Web page: http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1316/
Please reply by 2014-07-14
From: Common Control and Measurement Plane (John Drake <[email-masked]>)
To: ITU-T SG 15  ([email-masked])
Cc: [email-masked],[email-masked]@labn.net,[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked],[email-masked]
Response Contact: [email-masked]
Technical Contact: [email-masked]
Purpose: For action
Referenced liaison: LS/r on CCAMP Liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q6 and Q12 on flexible grid (http://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1289/)
Body: The CCAMP Working Group would like to thank you for your response liaison, COM-15-LS 079, titled “LS/r on CCAMP Liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q6 and Q12 on flexible grid”, dated 29 October 2013

In order to progress our work on the draft “Framework and Requirements for GMPLS based control of Flexi-grid DWDM networks” [1] and subsequent solution documents within the IETF CCAMP working group, we would like to receive your comments/clarification on the following items (addressing ITU-T experts within Q6, Q12 and Q14):

• Please comment on future changes regarding the values of nominal central frequency (NCF) granularity [NCFG, currently 6.25 GHz] and slot width granularity [currently 12.5 GHz], as defined in G.694.1. Is ITU-T considering alternative values (e.g. 3.125 GHz) for NCFG in the foreseeable future? If yes, is it correct to assume, that the following always holds, w.r.t. slot width granularity and NCF granularity?       
SWG = 2 * NCFG [Note: changes in these values may require additional code-points within encodings at control plane protocols.]

• Clarification on the maximum values of the slot width (m parameter) and the expected use cases (e.g. to cover the whole C band).            
[Note: Knowing these values is required since it has an impact on their encoding.]

• Opinion / Clarification on the data plane “hitless” and “hitless” capabilities. Is ITU-T considering any hitless procedure, such as resizing / restoration of a network media channel (in terms of its frequency slot)? Examples of cases where hitless capabilities may be considered are:

o   Case 1: Recovery where the new network media channel uses a diverse path
o   Case 2: shrink / enlarge frequency slot width, invariant NCF (n)
o   Case 3: shift the NCF (n), maintaining the frequency slot width (m)

• Clarification on the case where an OTUCn is carried by a (co-routed) group of network media channels which must be managed as a single entity (including set up, recovery, and hardware cross-connection). If this is in scope, what is the estimated availability of ITU-T Recommendation covering this new requirement?
[Note: CCAMP has considered so far the following requirement: “The control plane architecture SHOULD allow multiple media channels to be logically associated.  The control plane SHOULD allow the co-routing of a set of media channels logically associated”. If ITU-T covers this new requirement, it may have an impact on the control plane representation and related procedures.]

• G.872 defines that a media channel may carry more than one OCh-P signal. It also defines that a network media channel is the end-to-end channel allocated to transport a single OCh-P.  We would appreciate clarification on the application of network media channel with respect to media channel related to management and configuration aspects.

We would appreciate if you would continue to keep us informed of your progress and development on capabilities for the data plane that may affect the control plane.

Best regards,
Lou Berger and Deborah Brungard
IETF CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ccamp-flexi-grid-fwk-01
Attachments:

No document has been attached