Due to a ransomware attack, the wiki was reverted to a July 2022 version. . We apologize for the lack of a more recent valid backup.
Child pages
  • 2021-05-20 OIMT Meeting notes





  • Admin (5 min max)
    • F2F vMtg agenda planning
  • Control architecture & model
  • AOB
    • TR-512.17 draft
    • Location

Discussion items





5 minAdministrativeKam/Nigel

2021 Jun 01-04 : OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face

  • Check whether all topics will be prepared.
    • Swapped security and control as they are now clearly interdependent
  • Hing-Kam Lam has reserved ZOOM links for the meeting




Malcolm had found a challenge with the state machines behavior where a resource is provided with a Schedule (i.e., where it has a start and end time then it appears that it has to be in in pending withdrawal. But this seems strange.

Pending withdrawal should be used when the withdrawal was not expected and this should behave as shutting down.

Perhaps schedule and open-ended or similar. 

Prior to being active, it is potential or busy.

Agreed that Malcolm will think further through this further.

10 minLocationChris

Chris explained that there is significant complexity with geospatial models. This should not be added directly to the core. The simple examples in the core as sufficient.

Chris suggested that the separate document suggested previously should we should have a document on how to adapt the core model to work with a GIS. 

Leo noted that there is always variations from the standard.

  • Leo Nederlof Draft content for .A.x document on "Adapting the core model to work with a GIS" .
  • Nigel Davis  Send location model to Leo.
20 minControl modelMalcolm/Nigel

Summary report of MB/ND offline discussion on the control model. 

Nigel suggested the focus could be:

  • Platform isolation

  • Interface from the admin
  • Capability above admin

Malcolm emphasized the importance of "existing client". Need to look at planned resources.

Building shadow view.

Need to deal with transition work flow.

Client context to mix planned and current etc.

Security... giving a "non-trusted" client some admin control. 

VM allocated by the controller admin and software installed. The Client admin needs to be prevented from breaking out of the container.

Chris noted that there is a PEP missing in the middle.

Nigel noted that there are more nested boxes to show the ownership better.

Need a picture of controller compute.

Discussed rate limits and allocation of resources.

Build the isolations simplifies the security:

  • VM
  • Exposure context (the resources are just not there)

Chris noted that the non-monolith nature essentially frees us from RBAC.

These are proxy objects.

Discussed business trust v trust as discussed in the context of RBAC.

The framework being developed appears to have the flexibility to build a variety of business models.

Nigel and Malcolm will continue discussions.

0 minNext calls

 Planned agenda items

Future call agenda items

  • Finalize the write up on Multi-point Media Channel later call)
  • To recap the previous OIMT discussion on synchronization management IM (later call)

Action items