1. Pages
2. …
3. OIMT
4. Core Model
5. OIMT minutes
6. 2018 OIMT Minutes

2018-03-01 OIMT Meeting Notes

Chris ran through further examples of the application of the software model (using the slide pack) and indicated that he has added these examples to the document (.A.13). Chris showed the draft of .A.13.

On the FPGA example Malcolm noted that the addition of the CD made the model capability far clearer.

Chris focused on Simple Host with Host Os Vmm

• Host operating system has a control interface (chef, puppet etc)
• Hypervisor is added on the host with its own control interface. This allows creation of virtual machines etc
• In a VM there is a guest operating system that has its own control interface

There were no issues raised.

Nigel noted that he would aim to continue with the software model work and would then take Chris' software document (.12), add necessary structure for tables etc and run gendoc to generate the appropriate tables for Chris to use provide the documentation etc.

It was agreed that we need a storage model.This should be considered for release 1.5.

Action: Kam/Nigel: Add Storage model to 1.5 work items list.

We need to analyse the protection model for functionality and to look at the current protection model for forwarding to gain insight. We should aim for a single uniform protection and sharing model.

Action: Kam/Nigel: Add PC protection model to 1.5 work items list.

The following figures were shown.

from TR-512.11 V1.3.1.

The figure above shows the relationship between PC and equipment. It was agreed that the sharing of capability starts around this relationship. It was not clear whether a single function should emerge from the physical equipment tp then be shared or whether the sharing should be exposed through the relationship between the lowest level PC and the equipment. Further examples of this need to be constructed. This could be covered in part in 1.4 but will probably extend into 1.5 and beyond.

from figure 3.1 in TR-512.6 V1.3.1

During the discussion it was noted that the functions normally emerge from non-FRU subdivisions of eqipment. The non-FRU recursion is shown in the figure above.

Editor's note: The figure below shows a view of the current experimental functional protection model. This diagram fragment was NOT shown on the call. During the call a resilience group mechanism was suggested. The figure below shows an approach that is closer to the current Forwarding protection model. In the figure the switch can be at what ever rate necessary and can be a balanced merge (as it can be in the FC case). The debate seems to be the same as the "protection group + protection members v switch discussion" The switch/selector is a functional construct. The current model shown appears to be incorrect in that the ports of the PC should be being selected from not just the PC. This also appears to relate to the discussion on ERP ring where there was an explicit and a summary model of the scheme. The use of teh switch appears to eb an explicit model.

from figure 3.6 in TR-512.6 V1.3.1

The order of the terminations is not correct. The frame is NOT processed in the order received. The B-TAG and BMAC need to be swapped so that B-TAG is below BMAC..

• • Done: swap the B-TAG and BMAC

Editor's note: The usual convention is to use an "n" to show multiplicity, not several lines above the trapezoid.

• • Done: use "n" to follow the convention.

i.e. and NOT where the "n" may be an explicit number when known/relevant.

Editor's note: The triangle and trapezoids are not being used correctly with respect to the degree of termination. See example below for attempt at correction.

It would be preferable to show a number of common flexible options including STAG service and ITAG service as opposed to (or as well as) the simple layer stack.

• • Done: use "FC" to show flexibility.

Editor's note: For example (this is rough and will need to be cleaned up to fully align with the symbol set).

Editor's note: I believe that the I-TAG level does not normally have an FC opportunity.

Show frame format (as below or equivalent) and then show bubble summary. Use bubble summary in example diagram.

• • Done: use the PBB frame format.

from https://sites.google.com/site/amitsciscozone/home/pbb/understanding-pbb.

• London: Request to attendees for any dietary requirements.
• June: Proposal to move back to Ottawa agreed. Steve Shew will confirm on Monday 5 March.
• ITU-T meeting: No update.
• Australia: Need to confirm shortly and at the latest before the beginning of May.
• 2019 Meeting plan (assuming Ottawa in June 2018 is confirmed)
• 1Q in Europe, need host
• 2/3Q in Canada, need host
• 4Q (before Christmas) in Asia, need host

Agenda prep for London

• • The agenda plan document was updated (version stored here needs to be updated and added to the repository).
    • Updates are on page 1 and 2 oimt2018.KL.001.03-nd.march-agenda-plan.docx

Action: Nigel: Update the agenda-plan.

DONE: Updated version oimt2018.KL.004.06.march-agenda-plan posted on March 5.