Child pages
  • 2018-04-19 OIMT Meeting Notes
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


19 April 2018




  • IM-D:   
    • Brief admin
      • December meeting
      • Next week's meeting
    • Various topics
      • ControlConstruct & NameSpace (Malcolm & Chris)
      • Profiles
      • Software model (Chris)
      • Lifecycle updates – State transition (Malcolm)
      • Photonic model (Nigel)
  • IM-E:
    • TAPI
      • Review the v1.3.1 Core Equipment for TAPI to identify improvement within 1.4
    • Wireless transport
      • In ONAP demo with RAN and Core model
  • IM-F:  
    • Admin (10 minutes)
      • Outgoing LSs planned by London meeting
        • Media model LS (Malcolm)
        • Control Model to ZSM, MEF, SG15, TOSCA (Nigel)
    • Continuing v1.4 topics

Discussion Items

IM-DBrief adminNigel

December meeting

  • Cassandra has responded implying that the go ahead fro the meeting in the US is only gated by the need for signatures. On that basis it is expected that we will proceed with that meeting but until we have final confirmation we will not cancel the Australia plans
  • We expect clarity within the next two weeks
  • It will be advantageous to meet with the other ONF projects

Update from Timon in a presentation Wednesday 18 April (extracted slide).

  • There was concern in the meet that the OTCC and OIMT had not been pulled into the discussions.
  • It was recognized that communication between the steering teams across ONF needed to be improved and that some support from ONF core (Timon etc) would be needed.
  • The slides will be provided shortly.

Ottawa prep

  • Chris suggested that we brainstorm items for Ottawa well in advance of the meeting
  • Nigel suggested that in Ottawa we should be doing final reviews for 1.4 (considering current progress .

Next week's meeting

  • Recognizing that several key people are at MEF next week it may be sensible to cancel. A final decision will be taken later early next week.


  • Nigel indicated that he had validate the latest Open Model Profile (2.14) for the Core Model and that in the process he had noticed that the Core Model is a UML Package and not a UML Model. Nigel will fix this (and has proven a method to do this).
  • Nigel noted that he had not validated the Open Interface Profile and suggested that this was more appropriate for Karthik to do. Once Karthik is OK with the profile then either Nigel or Karthik can deal with the pull request.

Software Model

  • Chris showed the latest software document and explained that he was in the process of adding description for the attributes and classes in the document that Nigel had produced from the Papyrus model and dealing with the comments from Nigel
  • Chris noted that the descriptions should be ready this week and Nigel agreed to integrate in the next week or so


  • Nigel highlighted the progress in the media model and explained that the update would go into .2, .4 and .A.4. Some of these updates can be made now.
  • Nigel noted that the liaison to ITU-T depends upon some of the updates.
  • Nigel indicated that Stephane St Laurent had attended the OT-IM and TAPI calls and had explained how he was using the ONF work in TIP including especially Access Port. It appeared taht teh work in TIP and in ONF was well aligned and complementary.
IM-E Martin


  • ONAP SDN controller-R. Wireless Tansport and RAN.
  • 3GPP and BBF models for RAN which are related but different.
  • Took a BBF model (described in XML - has good definitions and syntax).
  • Used XSLT to generate Yang from the BBF model.
  • Scott/Nigel questioned whether BBF already had this in Yang?
  • Martin noted that the next step is to relate the BBF model to the Core
  • Nigel emphasized that it is important to get to the semantics of the model
  • Scott asked why this particular draft (TR-196-2-0-3) is being used as TR-383(?) is common Yang and TR-355 is fiber. It is not clear what the Femtocell in Yang is.
  • Action: Scott: Check with BBF contacts on what the latest femtocell management model spec is.
  • Martin will convert to UML.
  • Nigel noted that the key is structure. It is important to separate the physical (ruler) from logical and the outward facing (wireless) LTP from the inward facing LTPs.
  • Nigel noted the


  • Nigel showed the core equipment model and the model that related the LTP to the connectors.
  • On the Equipment model, above, there was some discussion around cable and connector. The key challenge identified was understanding the relationship between the Physical model and the LTPs

  • Nigel showed the model that bridged between the physical connector and LTP (via PinGroup). This showed the AccessPort as teh axis.
  • Nigel noted that the Access port is essentially the mapping between physical and functional models
  • Nigel emphasized that the physical model shown is all abstract and that the relationships were fixed in manufacturing and as such could be conveyed via a spec. All that is needed is a spec fro the fixed relationships and a reference from the LTP to AccessPort to bridge between the models.
  • Karthik noted that TAPI does not have that kind of spec yet
  • It was agreed that at this point TAPI would need to represent connectors and access port.
  • Further work is required on this model.
IM-FAdmin Attendance too low to hold formal meeting.

Action Items