Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Attendees

Goals

Discussion items

20 minsAdministrative

Next TAPI Call: 

  • Agenda 
    • Arturo Mayoral Equipment model, continue analysis
    • Streaming update (Nigel)
    • Routing Constraints (Andrea)
    • ODU OAM (Andrea)
    • Photonic Model
  • Agreed to set up a "long call" for detailed review of TR-5XX.1-TAPI v2.1.2 Reference Implementation on Tuesday February 4, from 12 to 6pm CET.
  • Next F2F Meeting Plan - not discussed. Current plan is: 
    • Week of 
      • Should we schedule it earlier? In April time-frame?
        • Jonathan Sadler : considering OIF 2020 Interop, an earlier meeting would be highly useful.
        • Looks like the only available week for all is the 30 March - 3 April.
    • Location: Telefonica, Madrid
  • Nigel Davis to provide more details on ETSI NFV feature, as it seems more related to Core IM than TAPI.
  • Action to ALL, please check the roadmap and enhance feature descriptions!
5 minsStreaming Model
  • Nigel Davis is working on the notes and comments of the model, together with the relationship with OAM model.
25 mins

Optical Network Disaggregation and LayerProtocolName #455

Andrea Mazzinishows the issue:

Currently LayerProtocolName lists DSR, ETH, ODU and PHOTONIC_MEDIA. The disaggregation between OTSi and Media layers would require similar split in LayerProtocolName, i.e. add OTSi literal. This will allow to distinguish Nodes, Links and NEPs belonging to OTSi or Media layers.

  • Some discussion, in general the proposal is agreed but:
    • Pedro Amaral and Karthik Sethuraman considering backward compatibility is preferable to replace PHOTONIC_MEDIA with more specific term, to avoid confusion.
    • Karthik Sethuraman recalls that in the past we did an opposite change, i.e. merging ETY and ETH into current ETH.
      • Apparently we are not able to define a precise criteria for these aggregations of layer rates.
    • Agreed to keep the issue open for further analysis.
60 mins

Routing Constraints

Andrea Mazzinipresents otcc2019.AM.006_TAPI_ConnectivityConstraints.pptx:

  • Two different cases, not excluding each other:
    1. Recursion of ConnectivityService
      • agreed that while the solution is backward compatible, the proliferation of SIP, CSEP and ConnectivityService objects could be an issue.
    2. New ConnectivityConstraint object class
  • Karthik Sethuraman Recursion of ConnectivityService, better by reference and not by name, which is difficult to manage in YANG.
  • Agreed to develop the figures below, consistently covering both cases 1. and 2. above.
    • A third ConnectivityService shall be added to drive the creation of the Connection spanning the "external" protection scheme / SwitchControl.


5 mins

ODU OAM

Andrea Mazzini briefly shows diagram below, discussion whether MEG is useful in case of Network Connection Monitoring, likely redundant. For Tandem Connection Monitoring the explicit provisioning is necessary. For Network Connection Monitoring the MEG, MEPs and MIPs can be automatically provided by the server, but in case some further provisioning is necessary then OamService and OamServicePoint objects must be available.

Action items

  •