Child pages
  • 2022-05-19 OIMT Meeting notes
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Attendees

Agenda

  • Admin
    • Brief check for any comments on the vF2F or action plan
  • Report on TR-512.A.15 progress (MB, ND)
  • Report on TIP MUST action discussion (KL, ND)
  • Task definition and rework review (in preparation for document/model enhancement)
  • Spec model review and agreement (in preparation for document/model enhancement)
  • Action update
  • AOB

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
5 minAdminAll

Brief check for any comments on 2022 April 19 - 22: OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face.

Note that the meeting plan is at the end of these minutes.

10 min
Malcolm/Nigel

Report on TR-512.A.15 progress

  • Nigel and Malcolm reported that they met and now know how to describe the link. In the diagram the link is dawrn in the misleading place. Need to breakup the drawing so that it can be more interpretable.
    • Now realize that the ClientContext and ServerContext relationship is logically 1-1, but the ServerContext may be distributed in implementation and thus physically the relationship is 1-n. but logically still 1-1.
    • Server side to responsible for ensuring all the information of the resources are reportable to the client side.
    • So, in term of streaming, the server must support all the streams providing the information.
    • Server should provide a catalog of streams that the client can choose from, and not to allow the client to create streams on the fly. 
    • Profiles. Examples: Physical inventory stream; Alarm stream; etc.
    • Server KPI. Client to filter it.
    • There might be circumstances that the client could be allowed to create a stream for itself, but that doesn't override the stream the server provides, and the client is required to pick one of the profile that ensures it gets all the information.
    • Client may partition.
    • Eg. Running a PM, client lost something and wants to get a particular record; Spotlight
    • Compaction. E.g, if the client crashed, it can reconstruct the data from the compacted stream, but may not get all the history. This should be part of the PKI in the agreement.
    • Stream aspects need to be captured. 
  • Nigel Davis Malcolm Betts    Provide write up of ClientContext and ServerContext relationship. Update A.15 with this text. 
    • Also provide plan for completion of .A.15 in conjunction with plan for .8
5 min
Kam/Nigel

Report on TIP MUST action discussion

  • Nigel & Kam to put together material/presentation to be shared with Arturo and TIP/MUST to determine whether this is still relevant. If still relevant, will point out the relationship between the Core and TAPI etc. models. Action item from 2021 Sep 07-10 : OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face
  • Propose to wait until TR-512.8 (Control) with streaming stuff of TR-512.A.15 (Controller lifecycle & security) are ready and then prepare the guidance/tutorial material (in parallel with preparing the publication) for liaising to TIP/MUST.
  • Nigel Davis Hing-Kam Lam    Plan the delivery date for the TR and hence for the TIP/MUST tutorial work. 
35 minAction item

Actions

Action items completed

Actions in black, action responses in blue and meeting notes from  in green and meeting notes from   in red

Task

This was not covered on  and will be added to the agenda for  

  • Nigel Davis  Definitions of task using Component-System principles (explaining the distinction) and show clear boundaries. Say what a task is and what not. Define recursion. Emphasize reuse. Place orchestration on a figure.
    • Considering the
      • Material in oimt2021.ND.005_OAM.pptx (version 4)
      • https://kestra.io/docs/concepts/flows.html
      • Component-System pattern as described in TR-512.A.4 (v1.5)
      • Various other considerations...
      • Use specialized term "ControlTask" to avoid terminology confusion
      • ControlTask: A definition of activity of a functional Component {hence it is opaque} that provides management-control capability.
        • By "activity" I mean externally visible behavior. Transfer function perhaps gives a better feel.
        • I am considering the Task as the definition here, but we may want to have an instance of running task and hence make it a thing with a definition.
        • Use "Transfer Functions"
        • Agreed that the following is sufficient for now
          • ControlTask: A functional Component that provides management-control capability where that capability is defined in terms of transfer functions.
      • As it is a Component, as described in TR-512.A.2, it:
        • has inputs and outputs
        • can be adjusted with policy and controls
          • In the case of the control task, these are all externally visible and provided via inputs.
        • has internal workflow
        • is described in terms of subordinate components
        • is... etc.
      • ControlTask capability (collection of transfer functions) is defined from the outside and hence its description does not vary due to internal hidden control
        • Other components expose capability that is defined from the inside.
      • To further clarify the component based definition for ControlTask...
        • It may take a set of inputs, process them, provide a set of outputs then complete/terminate.
          • The outputs may all be at the completion of the task or some may be at intermediate points
            • The outputs may directly update system state or may be streamed for use by other components
          • The inputs may all be available at the start of the task or they may be available at various points
            • The task will be initiated by the occurrence of some condition (trigger)
            • The inputs may be from monitored state or monitored stream
            • The task may pause to wait for an input, abandon if it does not have an input, skip the input etc.
        • It may run
          • as a single activity that terminates once complete
          • continuously with internal loops until requested to terminate via some state input
        • It may express its capability in terms of apparent control task flows that explain, in abstract, how the outputs are generated from the inputs
          • This is the definition of the transfer functions. 
          • A structure of apparent encapsulated ControlTasks with some stated flow
            • A flow may have loops etc.
            • An apparent ControlTask may have its capability expressed
        • It may express its capability in terms of a transfer function or some other structure that is not of a task form
        • It may be realized by subordinate control task flows
          • A structure of real control tasks with stated flow 
          • Flow is determined by trigger conditions that are caused by outputs from other tasks
            • Split is multiple tasks watching for the same trigger condition
            • Join of two requires two specific condition outputs (one from each) to cause the trigger condition
            • Alternative depends upon an output value
        • It may be realized by code (algorithms etc.)
          • There will be no deeper view of realization
          • There may be an expression of capability in terms of apparent encapsulated tasks with some stated flow 
      • Multiple instances of a specific type of ControlTask may run at the same time
        • A ControlTask instance will be running in some specific instance of flow and will be related to instances in the same instance of flow (needs more work here)
  • Discussion STOPPED HERE
  • Nigel Davis  How the orchestrator interprets complex tasks with intermediate outputs with loops etc.
    • As above, the ControlTask is defined in terms of apparent ControlTasks
    • Clearly a ControlTask is designed and is potentially designed for both the provider ControlConstruct and client ControlConstruct (Orchestrator)
      • The Orchestrator may already be capable of dealing with the task in a hard coded way
  • Nigel Davis  Example of a complex task description in terms of an abstract workflow with intermediate output and loops etc.
  • Nigel Davis  Work a definition set for the "Task" space accounting for the fractal nature and the Component-System pattern aspect. Deal with "triggers" (events etc.), constraints etc.
    • See above
  • Nigel Davis  Set out some meaningful examples an interaction of "Tasks" to achieve some relevant outcome (e.g., service creation, restoration...). Note that the action "Nigel Davis    To study the boundaries of Job/Task, ControlConstruct, PC, CASC (algorithmic). Consider path computation as an example. Action item from 2020 OIMT Virtual Face to Face - Week of April 13should be covered by this action.
    • See above
    • Note that the ControlTask:
      • may be run as a PC or within a PC with other Tasks where that PC may be implemented with software running on one or more equipments as per model
      • may be initiated by a ControlConstruct or CASC which which is implemented as software running on one or more equipments
  • Nigel Davis  Provide a mapping from "Task" terminology to other terminology sets (e.g., Use Case, Workflow...)
    • TBD


The following agent item was not discussed on due to lack of time and will be added to the agenda for  

Spec model review and agreement

  • Nigel Davis Take the spec model, prune out the stuff that are not relevant to simple layer hierarchy, look at how to apply the general principles (slide 32) notation to the stack of layers & rules, write it in the context of the original spec structure. 
  • Nigel Davis Construct simple spec example using layer hierarchy model for the OTN payload structure, try longhand form, correct number of occurrence set, based on some specific ports. Code it in JSON form of YANG. Note that the action.

Action items re-dated 

The following are proposed dates for the past actions. The action list has been updated to reflect this. The actions can be reverted/adjusted as necessary. Only actions that have been moved are listed.

  • Nigel Davis    Review IETF/IEEE documents and CH slides and merge as appropriate into simplified spec. Action item from 2021 Sep 07-10 : OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face
  • Nigel Davis  Cover combinatorial rule for layer protocol options. "And" & "Or" in spec language.
  • Nigel Davis Take the spec model, prune out the stuff that are not relevant to simple layer hierarchy, look at how to apply the general principles (slide 32) notation to the stack of layers & rules, write it in the context of the original spec structure. Note that the action "Nigel Davis  To prune out the unneeded stuff from the current Spec document so that to show the Yang "when" and "must" of the Occurrence pattern. Action item from 2021 Sep 07-10 : OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face" is covered by this action.
  • Nigel Davis Construct simple spec example using layer hierarchy model for the OTN payload structure, try longhand form, correct number of occurrence set, based on some specific ports. Code it in JSON form of YANG. Note that the action "Nigel Davis  Lay out the spec model with sufficient occurrence pattern of equipment in it. Relate UML to Yang. Action item from 2021 Sep 07-10 : OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face" is superseded by this action.
  •  Nigel Davis  Construct draft temporal model document
    • Correct errors in the temporal model instance example
    • Consider model addition to allow IncorporatedTe to also be a contained TeElement (not reusable) to remove need for additional TemporalExpressions.
    • Better describe union and intersection rules (same type unions and different type intersect)
    • INTERSECT_COMPLEMENT should be two properties (TE incorporation union/intersection and Complement referenced TE true/false
  • Nigel Davis   Make corrections to the streaming model as discussed   including
    • Corrections to comments from meeting  
    • Multiplicities around StreamHandler
  • Nigel Davis  add missing information flow corresponding to (2a) in Agg/Component diagram
  • Nigel Davis  Apply delegating root stereo type to ports in the model and prepare brief refactoring of LTP port applying the delegating root.
  • Nigel Davis   Martin Skorupski  To prune/clean-up LTP and FC model into two interrelated small models (aggregates) and then generate YANG from them.
  • Nigel Davis Andrea Mazzini  Review first draft of skeleton OAM document and determine whether content can be partitioned between AM and ND. Aim for 1.6 release.
  • Nigel Davis   Review draft Temporal Expression document. Note that the action "Nigel Davis   Draft temporal expression document" is covered by this action.




0 minNext calls

Plan

  • Meeting planning proposal (where each meeting will deal with the corresponding actions (with the date of the meeting)):
      • Confirm location examples not in V1.6 (T75)
      • Task
      • Spec model review and agreement
      • Discuss what is needed for the Equipment meeting  
      • Andrea Mazzini Nigel Davis Report on OAM draft document
      • Plan for delivery and TIP MUST liaison
        • Target delivery date
        • TIP MUST liaison with "model tutorial" text
    •  Cancel due to public holiday etc.
      • Aggregate application to LTP
      • Brief update on streaming
    •  
      • OAM draft document review
      • Temporal draft document review
      • Equipment discussion/resolution and preparation for delivery of document
      • Validate progress and plan model and documentation development
        • Review all relevant minutes/action resolution and draft document progress against plan including
          • Streaming (T65)
          • Task (T57)
          • Equipment (T8a)
          • Temporal (T73)
          • Spec (T56)
          • OAM (T5)
          • Aggregate (T64b)
          • Views/Context (11b)
            • TR-512.A.15 (and corresponding TR-512.8)
            • This includes some aspects of controller zero trust (T78)
        • Consider progress on and plan for delivery of
          • Compute and storage (T36)
          • Media multipoint addition to .A.4 (T77)
        • Construct detailed action plan for delivery on target date  
    •  
      •  Review draft streaming document material (part of TR-512.8).
    •  
      • TR-512.A.15 discussion, review, planning
  • At each meeting we should check that we are on track for the planned items

Future calls agenda items for consideration

  • TIP/MUST papers (CH, ND)
  • Catalog / inventory storage application (CH, ND)
  • IETF work on physical inventory model (ND)
  • RBAC vs ABAC (June 2021 F2F meeting Tue 1.2 ) 
  • Finalize the write up on Multi-point Media Channel (later call) (Candidate for v1.6)
  • To recap the previous OIMT discussion on synchronization management IM (later call)
  • YANG augmenting 
  • Leo on location model

Action items

  •