Child pages
  • 2020-02-27 OIMT Meeting notes
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Attendees

Agenda

  • Administrative
    • Future meetings
  • Comments from Party and Location models group review
  • Brief update on other TMF works 
  • Topics for future calls

Discussion items

Time

Item

Who

Notes


Administrative
  • Future meetings
    • Virtual meetings
      • Week of April 13
        • Several 6-9 ET calls. On March 12 to decide on the dates and topics .
      • Week of July 6
    • Face-to-face meeting
      • Telefonica has confirmed that it can host a face-to-face meeting on May 4 - 8 in  Madrid 
      • Given the COVID-19 situation, this F2F meeting may become a virtual meeting. Final decision will be made on March 26 
      • Topics:
        • OIMT
        • TAPI

Party & Location models  Nigel
  • Nigel: oimt2020.ND.003-ConsideringPartyAndLocation.pptx (discussed and addressed)
  • Kam: oimt2020.KL.001_cmt-on-TR-512.13_OnfCoreIm-Party.zip
  • Xiaobing: TR-512.14_OnfCoreIm-Location-xbn-review.docx
    • Comment: Should reflect class hierarchy in the Qualified Name.
      • Nigel: To consider. Will need to update the GenDoc 
    • Comment: Should indicate the unit of the Carttesian attributes (x, y, z) and the precision to the orientation attributes (theta, pi, psi).
      • Nigel: These are example structures. No intention to standardize these.
  • Kam: oimt2020.KL.002_cmt-on-TR-512.14_OnfCoreIm-Location.zip
    • Comment: According to the UML modeling guideline (5.4.2.3), the spec class is an abstract class. That is, no instances of the abstract class will be created. In this Party and Location models, it is not so (e.g, see the instance diagrams in Figures 4-3, 4-5 and the Location model). 
      • Nigel: In the Party and Location models, the spec classes are not for augmentation. They are concrete classes for specifying properties that are invariant with respect to the instances of the base class.
        • Will continue discussion off-line after the call.
    • Comment: In Figure 4.-3, cd1:ConstraintDomain contains lr1:LocationRole and lr2:LocatonRole, both have the same local ID value localId-1.
      • Nigel: In the diagram, the relationship between ConstrainDomain and LocationRole is not containment relationship.
      • The diagram needs update.

Other TMF worksNigel
  • Nigel noted TM Forum is revamping its control and interaction models.
  • He is expecting another liaison from TMF. 
  • We will liaise the Control model (TR-512.8) and Interaction pattern model (TR-512.10) to TMF for their alignment.
  • TMF has acknowledged receiving the OIMT Party & Location models

Future call topics
  • Lifecycle state
  • Ethernet model 
  • Work item wiki page
  • Security in streaming

Action items

  •