RFC 7699

Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers

📅 published November 2015, from ietf

RFC 7699: Generalized Labels for the Flexi-Grid in Lambda Switch Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers 🎀

Okay bestie, this one is an Internet Standards Track doc from the IETF, published in November 2015 (ISSN 2070-1721). The authors are A. Farrel and D. King from Old Dog Consulting, Y. Li from Nanjing University, and F. Zhang from Huawei Technologies. It doesn't obsolete anything, but it updates RFC 3471 and RFC 6205 by adding a new label format. Think of it as a glow-up for existing lambda labels 💅✨

Abstract ✨

GMPLS handles optical switching by pointing at entries in fixed lists of switchable wavelengths (called grids) using lambda labels. The ITU-T Study Group 15 came up with a finer-granularity grid, plus the ability to pick different widths of spectrum from that grid, and it's giving main character energy 🦋 This document defines a new GMPLS lambda label format to support this flexi-grid 🌈

This document updates RFCs 3471 and 6205 by introducing a new label format.

Status of This Memo 📝

This is an Internet Standards Track document.

It's a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and represents the consensus of the IETF community. It went through public review and was approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). For more on Internet Standards, check Section 2 of RFC 5741.

For the current status, any errata, and how to give feedback, go to http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7699.

Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please read these carefully, since they spell out your rights and restrictions for this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents 🗂️

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   1.1. Conventions Used in This Document . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Overview of Flexi-Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Fixed-Grid Lambda Label Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Flexi-Grid Label Format and Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.1. Flexi-Grid Label Encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.2. Considerations of Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
   4.3. Composite Labels  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Manageability and Backward Compatibility Considerations  . . . . 9
   5.1. Control-Plane Backward Compatibility  . . . . . . . . . . . 9
   5.2. Manageability Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.1. Grid Subregistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
   7.2. DWDM Channel Spacing Subregistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
8. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
   8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Appendix A. Flexi-Grid Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. Introduction 🌸

As described in [RFC3945], GMPLS extends MPLS from supporting only Packet Switch Capable (PSC) interfaces and switching, to also support four new classes of interfaces and switching that include Lambda Switch Capable (LSC).

A functional description of the extensions to MPLS signaling needed to support this new class of interface and switching is provided in [RFC3471].

Section 3.2.1.1 of [RFC3471] says wavelength labels "only have significance between two neighbors", so global wavelength semantics are not considered. [RFC6205] then defines a standard lambda label format with global semantics that is compliant with both the Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) grid [G.694.1] and the Coarse Wavelength Division Multiplexing (CWDM) grid [G.694.2]. The terms DWDM and CWDM are defined in [G.671].

A flexible-grid network picks its data channels as arbitrarily assigned pieces of the spectrum. Mixed bitrate transmission systems can give their channels different spectral bandwidths, so each channel can be tuned for the bandwidth needs of its particular bit rate and modulation scheme. This is seen as a promising way to improve network utilization efficiency and fundamentally reduce the cost of the core network 🤑

The "flexi-grid" was developed within the ITU-T Study Group 15 to allow selection and switching of pieces of the optical spectrum, chosen flexibly from a fine-granularity grid of wavelengths with variable spectral bandwidth [G.694.1] 🌈

[RFC3471] defines several basic label types, including the lambda label. Section 3.2.1.1 of [RFC3471] says wavelength labels "only have significance between two neighbors", and global wavelength semantics are not considered. To help interoperability in a network made of LSC equipment, [RFC6205] defines a standard lambda label format and is designated an update of RFC 3471.

This document keeps going with the theme of defining global semantics for the wavelength label, this time by adding support for the flexi-grid. So this document updates [RFC6205] and [RFC3471] 🫶

This document relies on [G.694.1] for the definition of the optical data plane and does not make any updates to the work of the ITU-T.

1.1. Conventions Used in This Document 📖

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

2. Overview of Flexi-Grid 🦋

[G.694.1] defines DWDM fixed grids. The latest version of that document extends the DWDM fixed grids to add support for flexible grids. The idea is to let a data channel be formed from an abstract grid anchored at 193.1 THz and selected on a channel spacing of 6.25 GHz, with a variable slot width measured in units of 12.5 GHz. Individual allocations can be made on this basis from anywhere in the spectrum, as long as allocations don't overlap.

[G.694.1] gives clear guidance on how implementations support the flexible grid in Section 2 of Appendix I:

   The flexible DWDM grid defined in clause 7 has a nominal central
   frequency granularity of 6.25 GHz and a slot width granularity of
   12.5 GHz.  However, devices or applications that make use of the
   flexible grid may not have to be capable of supporting every
   possible slot width or position.  In other words, applications may
   be defined where only a subset of the possible slot widths and
   positions are required to be supported.

   For example, an application could be defined where the nominal
   central frequency granularity is 12.5 GHz (by only requiring
   values of n that are even) and that only requires slot widths as a
   multiple of 25 GHz (by only requiring values of m that are even).

Some extra background on using GMPLS for flexible grids is in [RFC7698] 📚

2.1. Composite Labels 🧩

It's possible to build an end-to-end connection as a composite of more than one flexi-grid slot. The GMPLS mechanism is similar to the inverse multiplexing familiar from time-division multiplexing (TDM) and optical transport networks (OTNs). The slots in the set could potentially be contiguous or non-contiguous (only as allowed by the definitions of the data plane), and they could be signaled as a single LSP or built from a group of LSPs. For more details, see Section 4.3.

How the signal is carried across such groups of channels is out of scope for this document.

3. Fixed-Grid Lambda Label Encoding 🍓

[RFC6205] defines an encoding for a global semantic for a DWDM label based on four fields:

  • Grid: used to select which grid the lambda is selected from. Values defined in [RFC6205] identify DWDM [G.694.1] and CWDM [G.694.2].
  • C.S. (Channel Spacing): used to indicate the channel spacing. [RFC6205] defines values to represent spacing of 100, 50, 25, and 12.5 GHz.
  • Identifier: a local-scoped integer used to tell apart different lasers (in one node) when they can transmit the same frequency lambda.
  • n: a two's-complement integer that can take a positive, negative, or zero value. This value is used to compute the frequency as defined in [RFC6205] and based on [G.694.1]. The use of n is repeated here so the rest of this document is easier to read. If there's any discrepancy, the definition in [RFC6205] is normative.
   Frequency (THz) = 193.1 THz + n * frequency granularity (THz)

where the nominal central frequency granularity for the flexible grid is 0.00625 THz 🌟

4. Flexi-Grid Label Format and Values ✨

4.1 Flexi-Grid Label Encoding 🎀

okay so this section defines a generalized label encoding for flexi-grid systems 💅 Like the other GMPLS lambda label formats in [RFC3471] and [RFC6205], this one is known a priori. Since every lambda label gets interpreted hop by hop, the use of this label format requires that all nodes on the path expect to use it. no surprises allowed 😭

ngl the label is modeled on the fixed-grid label from [RFC6205] (we'll peek at that in Section 3), which is giving familiar but upgraded 🦋

Figure 1 shows the Flexi-Grid Label. It's a 64-bit label ✨

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Grid | C.S.  |    Identifier   |              n                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              m                |          Reserved             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1 : The Flexi-Grid Label Encoding

This document defines a new Grid value to supplement those in [RFC6205] 🧚

+----------+---------+
|   Grid   |  Value  |
+----------+---------+
|ITU-T Flex|    3    |
+----------+---------+

Within the fixed-grid network, the C.S. value is used to represent the channel spacing, since the spacing between adjacent channels is constant. For the flexible-grid situation, this field is used to represent the nominal central frequency granularity 💜

This document also defines a new C.S. value to supplement those in [RFC6205] 🍓

+------------+---------+
| C.S. (GHz) |  Value  |
+------------+---------+
|     6.25   |    5    |
+------------+---------+

The meaning of the Identifier field is maintained from [RFC6205] (see also Section 3) 🫶

The meaning of n is maintained from [RFC6205] (see also Section 3) 🫶

The m field identifies the slot width according to the formula given in [G.694.1], as follows. It's a 16-bit integer value encoded in line format 🌈

         Slot Width (GHz) = 12.5 GHz * m

The Reserved field MUST be set to zero on transmission and SHOULD be ignored on receipt 🙈

An implementation that wishes to use the flexi-grid label encoding MUST follow the procedures of [RFC3473] and of [RFC3471] as updated by [RFC6205]. It MUST set Grid to 3 and C.S. to 5. It MUST set Identifier to indicate the local identifier of the laser in use, as described in [RFC6205]. It MUST also set n according to the formula in Section 3 (inherited unchanged from [RFC6205]). Finally, the implementation MUST set m as described in the formula stated above 👑

4.2. Considerations of Bandwidth 💸

there's some overlap between bandwidth and label in lots of GMPLS-based systems, because a label points at a physical switching resource. it's even more of a thing in a flexi-grid system, where the label value sets the slot width and therefore affects the bandwidth an LSP supports. so the m parameter is both a property of the label (it helps define exactly what gets switched) and a property of the bandwidth 🤯

In GMPLS signaling [RFC3473], bandwidth is requested in the SENDER_TSPEC object and confirmed in the FLOWSPEC object. The m parameter, which is a parameter of the GMPLS flexi-grid label described above, is also a parameter of the flexi-grid Tspec and Flowspec as described in [FLEXRSVP] ✨

4.3. Composite Labels 🌸

the creation of a composite of multiple channels for inverse multiplexing is already supported in GMPLS for TDM and OTN (see [RFC4606], [RFC6344], and [RFC7139]). the flexi-grid mechanism is similar, so it's not a whole new vibe 🦋

To signal an LSP that uses multiple flexi-grid slots, you build a "compound label". Basically the LABEL object is built from a concatenation of the 64-bit Flexi-Grid Labels shown in Figure 1. You can figure out how many elements there are from the length of the LABEL object. The resulting LABEL object is shown in Figure 2, including the object header that isn't normally shown in diagrams of RSVP-TE objects. Note that r is the count of component labels, and this is backward compatible with the label in Figure 1, where the value of r is 1 💖

The component labels MUST be presented in increasing order of the value n. Implementations MUST NOT infer anything about the encoding of a signal into the set of slots represented by a compound label from the label itself. Information about the encoding MAY be handled in other fields in signaling messages or through an out-of-band system, but those considerations are outside the scope of this document 🙅‍♀️

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   Object Length (4 + 8r)      | Class-Num (16)|  C-Type (2)   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Grid | C.S.  |    Identifier   |              n                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              m                |          Reserved             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Grid | C.S.  |    Identifier   |              n                |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |              m                |          Reserved             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 2 : A Compound Label for Virtual Concatenation

Note that specific rules must be applied, as follows:

  • Grid MUST show "ITU-T Flex" value 3 in each component label.
  • C.S. MUST have the same value in each component label.
  • Identifier in each component label may identify different physical equipment.
  • Values of n and m in each component label define the slots that are concatenated.

At the time of writing, [G.694.1] only supports groupings of adjacent slots (i.e., without intervening unused slots that could be used for other purposes) of identical width (same value of m). The component slots must be in increasing order of frequency (i.e., increasing order of the value n). The mechanism defined here MUST NOT be used for other forms of grouping unless and until those forms are defined and documented in Recommendations published by the ITU-T ⚠️

Heads up: that last rule is a hard no for any other grouping style until the ITU-T has defined and documented it. 🚫

Note further that while this mechanism naturally means all component channels are corouted, a composite channel can also be achieved by building individual LSPs from single flexi-grid slots and managing those LSPs as a group. A mechanism for doing this for TDM is described in [RFC6344], but it's out of scope for this document, because the labels used are normal, single-slot labels and need no additional definitions 🌷

5. Manageability and Backward Compatibility Considerations 🛠️

this section briefly looks at manageability and backward compatibility, the stuff that keeps the network from getting messy when upgrades roll out 🧁

5.1. Control-Plane Backward Compatibility 🔁

Labels are carried in two ways in GMPLS: for immediate use on the next hop, and for use at remote hops 💌

It's an assumption of GMPLS that both ends of a link know which label types are supported and only use appropriate label types. If a label of an unknown type is received, it will be processed as if it were of a known type, since the Label Object and similar label-carrying objects don't contain a type identifier. So the introduction of a flexi-grid label in this document doesn't change the compatibility issues. A legacy node that doesn't support the new flexi-grid label should not expect to receive or handle such labels. If one is incorrectly used in communication with a legacy node, that node will attempt to process it as an expected label type, with a potentially poor outcome 😬

It's possible that a GMPLS message transiting a legacy node will contain a flexi-grid label destined for, or reported by, a remote node. For example, an LSP that transits links of different technologies might record flexi-grid labels in a Record Route Object that is later passed to a legacy node. Such labels won't have any impact on legacy implementations, except as noted in the manageability considerations in the next section 🫧

5.2. Manageability Considerations 📋

This document introduces no new elements for management. Labels can keep being used the same way by the GMPLS protocols, and where those labels were treated as opaque quantities with local or global significance, no change is needed to the management systems 🙌

However, this document does introduce some changes to the nature of a label that may require changes to management systems. Section 3.2 of [RFC3471] makes clear that a label is of variable length according to its type, and that the type is supposed to be known a priori by both ends of a link. Still, a management system isn't guaranteed to be updated in step with upgrades or installations of new flexi-grid functionality in the network 😭

But an implementation expecting a 32-bit lambda label wouldn't fail ungracefully, because the first 32 bits follow the format of [RFC6205]. It would look at these labels, read them, but not recognize the new grid type value. It would then give up trying to parse the label and (presumably) the whole rest of the message 🙈

The management system can be upgraded in two steps:

  • First, systems that handle lambda labels as 32-bit quantities need to be updated to handle the increased length (64 bits) of labels as described in this document. These "unknown" 64-bit labels could be displayed as opaque 64-bit quantities and still add a lot of value for the operator (who might need to parse the label by hand). However, an implementation that already supports lambda labels as defined in [RFC6205] can safely keep processing the first 32 bits and display the fields defined in RFC 6205 as before, leaving just the second 32 bits as opaque data.
  • Second, a more sophisticated upgrade to a management system would fully parse the flexi-grid labels and display them field by field, as described in this document 🧠

6. Security Considerations 🔐

[RFC6205] notes that the definition of a new label encoding does not introduce any new security considerations to [RFC3471] or [RFC3473]. That statement applies equally to this document 🛡️

For a general discussion of MPLS and GMPLS-related security issues, see the MPLS/GMPLS security framework [RFC5920] 👀

7. IANA Considerations 🧾

IANA maintains the "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Parameters" registry, which contains several subregistries 💼

7.1. Grid Subregistry

IANA has allocated a new entry in this subregistry as follows:

Value   Grid                         Reference
-----   -------------------------    ----------
  3     ITU-T Flex                   RFC 7699

7.2. DWDM Channel Spacing Subregistry

IANA has allocated a new entry in this subregistry as follows:

Value   Channel Spacing (GHz)        Reference
-----   -------------------------    ----------
  5     6.25                         RFC 7699

8. References 📚

8.1. Normative References ✨

[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119.

[RFC3471] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Functional Description", RFC 3471, DOI 10.17487/RFC3471, January 2003, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3471.

[RFC3473] Berger, L., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Resource ReserVation Protocol-Traffic Engineering (RSVP-TE) Extensions", RFC 3473, DOI 10.17487/RFC3473, January 2003, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3473.

[RFC6205] Otani, T., Ed., and D. Li, Ed., "Generalized Labels for Lambda-Switch-Capable (LSC) Label Switching Routers", RFC 6205, DOI 10.17487/RFC6205, March 2011, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6205.

[G.694.1] International Telecommunication Union, "Spectral grids for WDM applications: DWDM frequency grid", ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1, February 2012, https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.694.1/en.

8.2. Informative References 📚

[RFC3945] Mannie, E., Ed., "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Architecture", RFC 3945, DOI 10.17487/RFC3945, October 2004, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3945.

[RFC4606] Mannie, E. and D. Papadimitriou, "Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Extensions for Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) Control", RFC 4606, DOI 10.17487/RFC4606, August 2006, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4606.

[RFC5920] Fang, L., Ed., "Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks", RFC 5920, DOI 10.17487/RFC5920, July 2010, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5920.

[RFC6344] Bernstein, G., Ed., Caviglia, D., Rabbat, R., and H. van Helvoort, "Operating Virtual Concatenation (VCAT) and the Link Capacity Adjustment Scheme (LCAS) with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)", RFC 6344, DOI 10.17487/RFC6344, August 2011, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6344.

[RFC7139] Zhang, F., Ed., Zhang, G., Belotti, S., Ceccarelli, D., and K. Pithewan, "GMPLS Signaling Extensions for Control of Evolving G.709 Optical Transport Networks", RFC 7139, DOI 10.17487/RFC7139, March 2014, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7139.

[RFC7698] Gonzalez de Dios, O., Ed., Casellas, R., Ed., Zhang, F., Fu., X., Ceccarelli, D., and I. Hussain, "Framework and Requirements for GMPLS-Based Control of Flexi-Grid Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) Networks", RFC 7698, DOI 10.17487/RFC7698, November 2015, http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7698.

[G.671] International Telecommunication Union, "Transmission characteristics of optical components and subsystems", ITU-T Recommendation G.671, February 2012, https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.671/en.

[G.694.2] International Telecommunication Union, "Spectral grids for WDM applications: CWDM wavelength grid", ITU-T Recommendation G.694.2, December 2003, https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.694.2/en.

[FLEXRSVP] Zhang, F., Zhang, X., Farrel, A., Gonzalez de Dios, O., and D. Ceccarelli, "RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Flexible Grid", Work in Progress, draft-ietf-ccamp-flexible-grid-rsvp-te-ext-03, August 2015.

Appendix A. Flexi-Grid Example 🌈

Okay bestie, let's walk through a little slice of an optical LSP between node A and node B that's using the flexible grid. 🦋 Say the LSP on this hop gets set up like this:

  • using the ITU-T Flexi-Grid
  • the nominal central frequency of the slot is 193.05 THz
  • the nominal central frequency granularity is 6.25 GHz
  • the slot width is 50 GHz.

So the label that stands for the switchable flexi-grid quantity gets encoded the way we covered in Section 4.1, with these parameter settings. ✨ The label can then be used in signaling or in management protocols to describe the LSP. 💖

Grid = 3 : ITU-T Flexi-Grid

C.S. = 5 : 6.25 GHz nominal central frequency granularity

Identifier = local value indicating the laser in use

n = -8 :

    Frequency (THz) = 193.1 THz + n * frequency granularity (THz)

    193.05 (THz) = 193.1 (THz) + n * 0.00625 (THz)

    n = (193.05 - 193.1) / 0.00625 = -8

m = 4 :

    Slot Width (GHz) = 12.5 GHz * m

    50 (GHz) = 12.5 (GHz) * m

    m = 50 / 12.5 = 4

Acknowledgments 🫶

This work was supported in part by the FP-7 IDEALIST project under grant agreement number 317999.

Very many thanks to Lou Berger for discussions of labels of more than 32 bits. Many thanks to Sergio Belotti and Pietro Vittorio Grandi for their support of this work. Thanks to Gabriele Galimberti for discussion of the size of the "m" field, and to Iftekhar Hussain for discussion of composite labels. Robert Sparks, Carlos Pignataro, and Paul Wouters provided review comments during IETF Last Call.

The Vancouver 2012 Pool Party drove early discussions and rough consensus. It comprised: Dieter Beller, Ramon Casellas, Daniele Ceccarelli, Oscar Gonzalez de Dios, Iftekhar Hussain, Cyril Margaria, Lyndon Ong, Fatai Zhang, and Adrian Farrel. 🎀

Contributors 💅

Zhang Fei, Huawei Technologies, Email: zhangfei7@huawei.com

Ramon Casellas, CTTC, Email: ramon.casellas@cttc.es

Authors' Addresses 🦋

Adrian Farrel, Old Dog Consulting, Email: adrian@olddog.co.uk

Daniel King, Old Dog Consulting, Email: daniel@olddog.co.uk

Yao Li, Nanjing University, Email: wsliguotou@hotmail.com

Fatai Zhang, Huawei Technologies, Email: zhangfatai@huawei.com 👑

📦 where this page comes from