- Absence of a document repository is an issue.
- Can China access Box?
- Chris suggested that we can set up a mechanism that provides a copy on a separate machine.
London Dec. 4 - 8, 2017 meeting (Invited by ITU-T)
Future meeting planning
- Proposed 2018 OIMT+OTCC Interim Meetings
- March 12 - 16 @ London (Cisco/Ciena) or Budapest (Ericsson)
- June 11 - 15 @ Ottawa (Ciena/Ericsson)
- December 3 - 7 @ Melbourne Australia (Cisco)
- Set up doodle poll
| ||CORD Build wrap up|| |
See 2017 Nov. 6-10 OIMT & OTCC Interim Meeting Agenda & Notes
Feedback of Nov.6-10 OIMT & OTCC meeting
- Action item - Andrea: Update the meeting notes on OAM
- Telecom Infra Project ( TIP) presentation
- Action item - Nigel: Contact Stephane to determine when the TIP presentation will be available.
- Action item - Kam/Nigel:Ensure actions are pulled out of the minutes.
Chris gave a brief overview of the good progress he has made on the Protobuf guidelines
- Nigel asked when there will be a complete draft
- Chris indicated that he was now deeply in the difficult parts. He should be able to say next week when a completed draft should be available.
- Liaison from MEF on MEF Modeling projects and their relationship with ONF TAPI.msg
- The LS states that "In a subsequent phase the interested MEF and ONF representatives may agree the proper way to perform this joint collaboration (e.g. dedicated wiki at MEF and/or ONF, periodic calls, etc."
- Need to work out how to collaborate
- Action item - Nigel/Kam:
- Need to schedule time to joint discuss with OTCC/TAPI on the comments
- Andrea, Karthik, Lyndon, Nigel, Bernd, Kam to work off line via email for initial material for a LS response
- Andrea noted that we need to ensure that the UML usages is not compromised by unnecessary differences and that inter-organization interoperability is not compromised.
| ||V1.4 topics||All|
- Nigel provided a brief overview of work that was being done on the controller model related to the MEF liaison response. This focused on the rationale that a control construct talks to another control construct about the things that are controlled and that it talks through the control constructs port (through-to-about pattern). This implies that there need to be operations defined on the ports of the control constructs.
- Nigel skimmed over a model sketch of this where the existing control component model fragment had been extended to include an operations aspect (see attached OperationsOnControlConstruct.pptx).
TAPI Termination Point model
- Brief overview of the current layering picture
- Question whether we should have a multi-layer-protocol node
- Discussion on Transitional Link traversing several devices
- Nigel suggested that transitional links are only really valuable for path computation
- Andrea highlighted compatibility considerations
- Nigel noted the case of serial compound transitional links
- Nigel suggested that all the transitional links are derivable from the termination/forwarding model and that as they are primarily (or exclusively) relevant to the path computation activity, perhaps the TL are not necessary in TAPI. It would seem certain the the complex ones are not.
- Andrea suggested that multi-layer provisioning
- Nigel suggested that the view on slide 73 was a valid case but was not multi-layer. Only where there is asymmetry of access (Ethernet at one end and ODU at the other) is there a need fro a multi-layer consideration and this is more the case if there is dual homing.
- Andrea worked through a number of potential scenarios.
- Andrea asked what we need to add to the SIP/CEP to facilitate multi-layer scenarios.
|IM-F||V1.4 topics|| ||Meeting cancelled due to low attendance.|