Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Attendees

Goals

  • Admin
    • Consolidate the dates of next virtual meetings
  • Review/Consolidation of TR-548 RIA-Streaming
  • 2.1.x / Edge: alignment of OAM model
  • Restart discussion on ODU OAM model
  • Continue update of TAPI Roadmap

Discussion items

10 minsAdministrative

 TAPI Call: 2 hours

  • TR-548 RIA-Streaming
  • 2.1.x / Edge: alignment of OAM model
  • Restart discussion on ODU OAM model
  • Continue update of TAPI Roadmap

Two sessions of 3 days / 5 hours (1pm - 6pm CET) - with the option to add some extra hours on Thursday

Draft agenda: 2020Q3 TAPI Virtual Meeting Agenda and Notes Oct. 19/20/21 and Nov. 09/10/11

  • Session 1:  
  • Session 2:  

Karthik Sethuraman highlights the need for recruitment! Nigel Davis replies that we shall ask people involved in OIF Interop.

60 mins

Review/Consolidation of TR-548 RIA-Streaming

Nigel Davis the Streaming RIA now includes majority of use cases, together with the "mandatory"/ "optional" indications. To be completed the cross references between UCs and the main part of the document,

Nigel Davis presents a Streaming RIA draft, not yet uploaded (will upload soon), reading the amended text:

  • Arturo Mayoral confirms that the document appears much more structured, a good improvement. Will review in detail.
  • Use Cases chapter, first use cases are related to the set up of infrastructural aspects of the streaming feature, e.g. communication channel.
  • Agreed that the mentioned "slicing" actually refers to "tenant based slicing", to avoid confusion with e.g. resource slicing.
  • Nigel Davis mentions the gRPC/gNMI streaming method, less sophisticated but rather parallel.
  • Discussion on "bulk PM" retrieval, agreed that is not particularly suitable for streaming with the exception of "Current Data" instances, which contents can be streamed once the granularity period ends. Karthik Sethuraman points out that in MEF there are several discussions on these topics.
50 mins

2.1.x / Edge: alignment of OAM model

Andrea Mazzini presents TAPI213vsNMR_5Oct.docx

  • The document lists the differences between YANG (generated & edited) modules of 2.1.x and main/edge TAPI versions.
  • The differences are decreasing, due to the performed modifications for alignment. Still some work to be done.
    • The comparison job allows also to find little errors/misalignments on UML and YANG.
  • Discussion on cepRole attribute of ConnectionEndPoint:
    • roleName: string
    • connectionSpecReference: ConnectionSpecReference (connectionSpecName; connectionSpecId)
    • While currently there are no Connection Spec defined, the attribute is useful for future enhancements. Today some complex connection schemes are modeled through CSEPs in recursive relationships (CSEPHasServerCSEP, CSEPIsProtectedByCSEP, CSEPHasForwardingPeerCSEP).
    • Preliminary agreement to keep the cepRole attribute in CEP and
      • add it to CSEP,
      • align main/edge version.
  • Discussion on TapiNotification and TapiOam: in main/edge TAPI version the OAM related items have been moved from TapiNotification to TapiOam:
    • e.g. alarm-info and tca-info augments tapiNotification:Notification and “get-notification-list”, while 2.1.x alarm-info and tca-info are defined in TapiNotification and are composed into Notification.
    • Karthik Sethuraman recalls that there were strong reasons to perform these modifications (i.e. it is not only embellishment), likely to solve some issues on references.
    • Will continue the analysis on best way to align TAPI versions, considering that MEF is 1) already referring some definitions of main/edge version, 2) the MEF Common Resource Model project (bring tech agnostic TAPI into MEF) needs a TAPI official delivery as reference: