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.


2am PDT | 5am EDT | 9:00 UTC | 11:00 CEST | 12:00 EEST | 14:30 IST | 17:00 CST | 18:00 JST |

Web Conference:

https://onf.zoom.us/j/853336915 -Zoom is blocked by more and more ITs.

Please use the following link: https://thorsten-heinze-telefonica-de.webex.com/join/andreas.lattoch.external 


(please feel free to correct, update your names (wink) Thank you very much!!!) 

Info to: 


  • going forward

Discussion items

00:00chair topic 
no update 



Next meetings

2020-07-08: Martin Skorupski

2020-07-15: Martin Skorupski

2020-07-22: Martin Skorupski

Wire interface errors in modelling leaf-lists in config and status

Issues are documented in openBackhaul GitHub:







Pawel Krecick
Thorsten Heinze

The deadline for commenting was reached yesterday. Thorsten Heinzewill consolidate the comments.

The application needs a clear reference between the LTP and where to interface it at the outside of the device. This number or text needs to be put into the model. The current proposal is to use the label attribute (either in equipment or connector). Michael Binder pointed out that label is used usually by the operator for other purposes and we should use the name attribute for our purpose. In the UML, name attribute has a multiplicity of min 1. We need feedback from Nigel Davis and Martin Skorupski to see which of the attributes (name or label) would be more suited. Email sent to Nigel about this is here.


LTP has an accessPort reference, and it is a reference to a pin group.

Equipment is referencing the connector.

We should not model all the pins and pin groups. We should model where the RJ45 or SFP should be connected. Proposal was to use the accessPort to reference a connector or we add a new attribute which references the connector.

Thorsten Heinze would prefer adding a new attribute "_connector", next to the "_accessPort", and keep the old "_accessPort" for referencing pin groups, if needed in the future. No other opinions.

Physical-port-reference in the LTP points to the equipment. Originally it is not pointing to the Equipment class, but it is a String. Question: use this attribute to point to the connector? or keep it pointing to the equipment. Or should we change it back to String and it should contain a label or a reference to a connector.

We need to define the option that we want to use. Thorsten Heinze, it should be as close as possible to the CoreModel, it will be better when updating to a new version of the CoreModel.

Maybe we should keep the physical-port-reference as a String (original definition) and use it to put the (label) text located on the outside of the device. This means we do not need to model the connector. @Pawel points out that we need to define what the String should look like, and all vendors should align in this regards. It should contain information about rack, slot, port etc.

ordered-byAlex Stancu

Martin Skorupski Convert email into wiki.


VLAN Model with reduced scope. 

review period for documents from last August will end 2020-06-09

Ongoing work - on Agenda of next weeks.... 

00:00RMONAndreas Lattoch

Martin Skorupski Add link to ongoing discussion...

on Agenda of next


dropping-behavior-kind on device/switch level - link to issue

AI: Danilo PalaMichael BinderDaniela Spreafico: Please provide options how to solve the issue and a recommendation for discussion next week. 

AI: Martin SkorupskiWork out a proposal to be discussed next week. 

based on the proposal made in the issue:

The dropping-behavior-kind shall become part of a Profile,

  • which can be instantiated multiple times, in case the device allows independently adjusting the dropping-behavior-kind per interface,
  • or just a single time, in case the device allows adjusting the dropping-behavior-kind just on device/switch level.

further details should be agreed. 

  1. A new profile type should be created, called "PROFILE_NAME_TYPE_DROPPING_PROFILE
  2. The profile details are just extensible ENUM (yang: identity) similar like "dropping-behavior-kind-type"
  3. ethernet-container-capability: available-dropping-behavior-kind-list will be of type "identity-ref" to the PROFILE_NAME_TYPE_DROPPING_PROFILE
  4. ethernet-container-configuration: dropping-behavior-kind will be of type be of type "identity-ref" an entry in  ethernet-container-capability/available-dropping-behavior-kind-list
  5. The pointers from ethernet-container-capability and ethernet-container-configuration allow the following use cases
    1. The EthernetSwitch (FD) allows only one Profile, all capabilities and all configuration are "static" because only one Profile exists. Any dynamic configuration happens in the Profile itself.
    2. Several Profiles with different configuration/behavior exists - ("static profiles"). Any configuration happens only by switching the profile.
    3. a combination of a) and b), which is not recommended due to unnecessary complexity.

Conclusion during the discussion:

  • investigate in
    • adding another ethernet-container-capability attribute to express, if the LTP
      • can,
      • must,
      • must-not follow the configuration on device (forwarding-domain?) level
    • creating a device (forwarding-domain) PAC to uml:specify (yang:augment) ETH-Switch capabilities and configuration
  • Further discussion on agenda for 2020-06-10.

See contributions:

Switching the port by management interface → CoreModel solution is ForwardingConstruct with FC-Switch.

AI: Martin SkorupskiShow how this works with CoreModel 1.4



Status: discussion on-hold

core-model allows definition of both Logical Termination Points (interfaces), but also connections

  • Forwarding Domain:
    • either connection inside the same device
    • connections outside devices
  • Link:
    • any type of link, not only microwave
  • Forwarding Construct:
    • concrete forwarding between two or more LTPs / ports
      • unidirectional / bidirectional

core-model is also suitable for representing entire Networks, not only a Device

this means that Universally Unique IDs are required

Devices cannot get the UUIDs from outside, they need to be generated by the device, and cannot be overwritten from outside

Devices are unaware by their surroundings (the network), so it cannot know if a UUID is already used by some other interface in other devices

IETF defines how to create UUIDs, and the core-model references this RFC

  • we need UUIDs for documenting the network
  • we cannot write the UUIDs in the device, the device needs to create it 
  • the device does not have a network wide view
  • this is needed because of the Planning the network

Possible solutions:

  • the device generates whatever, the IDs are retrieved and a mapping table is maintained
  • we prescribe a method/algorithm that is implemented in the device for creating UUIDs (which become predictable):
    • using some prefix which is known during the implementation time of the device - (e.g. MAC address of the Management interface); vendor sends info about Order no. and MAC addr. to the operator and the Planning will be done with these prefixed values → less complex than a field technician configuring the prefix on the device with some dongle
    • fixed UUID with prefix and postfix


  • use the Device name instead of the MAC addr.
  • clean-up application that handles the changing of MAC addresses

Out of time, we need to follow up: proposal, next week Tuesday 09:00 CET


Notes from  

Discussion about UUID and Links/Asszosations/References between object classes

ODL MountPoint is and association to a NetConf server - some NetConf servers representing some times the microwave model.

Action items