Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Date

Attendees

Goals

Agreed Items & Priority

  • Below the list of the agreed items and related priority.
  • An item is blocking when its resolution is necessary precondition for the delivery.


TAPI 2.3/2.4 and RIA 1.2/2.0

  1. MEP/MIP model vs. direct inclusion of OAM parameters in the CEP (solved)
    1. ODU OAM
    2. Photonic OAM
    3. TCA provisioning
  2. Physical impairments (not blocking)
    • OFC is augmenting TAPI Link, others the AbstractStrand.
    • Type of amplifier, fibre attenuation, etc.
  3. Photonic model capability (not blocking)
  4. Lifecycle management of ConnectivityService at every layer, necessary to identify UCs (not blocking)
    • Lifecycle management of single ConnectivityService, necessary to identify UCs
  5. 3R (not blocking)
  6. UNI Client interfaces modelling. DSR/ODU multiplexing over ODU (not blocking)
  7. RESTCONF Response codes for use cases (not blocking)
  8. TAPI OAS, action points to be assigned (not blocking)
  9. Routing Constraints (not blocking)
  10. Physical Route (not blocking)

Discussion items

10 minsAdministrative

All



TAPI RIA 1.2/2.0:

  • Scheduled two additional, official, dedicated TAPI calls:
    • Wed 1:00-3:00pm and Fri 10:30-12:30 CET
    • Calendar files available in the reminder email sent on January 10th.


TAPI weeky call

Preliminary agenda:

  • Continue the discussion on layering recommendations
  • Continue the development of Optical Impairment UML model
  • Continue the discussion on physical topology
10 minsNotes on RIA reviewRamon Casellas 

Ramon Casellas points out that the CSEP is a local class, hence the notification guidelines shall be checked.

60 mins

Layering recommendations

All

Andrea Mazzini shows some consequences of recent agreements on layering.

  • Identified three distinct cases for the OLP scheme:

1: The OLP conceptually belongs to the ROADM / Open Line System, hence the MC CEP is projected on the OLP, to end the MC (protected) Top Connection:

2: The OLP conceptually belongs to the Transceiver/Transponder, hence the OTSiMC CEP is projected on the OLP, to end the OTSiMC (protected) Top Connection: 

      • Post meeting note: if the OLP belongs to the Transponder, then is the OLS UNI located between OLP and ROADMs?

3: Combination of the two cases above:

Andrea Mazzini notes that for the Asymmetric DSR Connectivity scenario we described a different choice, i.e. the ODU2 CEP is not projected, and the ODU2 Connection is ended conventionally on the supporting ODU4 CEP:

Another scenario foresees a transit DSR ConnectivityService, which is explicitly represented in case there is at least one monitoring point at the layer (slide 74 of otcc2020.AM.001_TAPI_Photonic_Model_Evolution.pptx).

Nigel Davis and Ramon Casellas agree that the projection provides a clearer view of the network.

  • Andrea Mazzini fears that adding fake object instances will not be well received.
  • Nigel Davis notes that the effect of the established MC actually ends on the Transponder.

Nigel Davis shows the slide of otcc2021.ND.001_TapiLayers.pptx  with the OTSiMC extended through the OLP:

This discussion will continue on next RIA calls.

30 mins

Resume the discussion on transmission capability

Andrea Mazzini 

During one of the last RIA calls, Ramon Casellas asked about the need of baseLayerProtocolQualifier attribute of the NEP.

Andrea Mazzini updates some slides on transmission capability to check the attribute, and the preliminary result is that using the multiplexing sequences is enough to describe the capabilities:



Furher analysis of client / UNI port and floating TP models is necessary.

The transmission capability of photonic NEPs shall rely on different parameters, e.g. spectrum, frequency constraints.

30 mins

Draft of Optical Impairment UML model

Andrea Mazzini 

Andrea Mazzini presents the updated UML diagram of Photonic Profiles.

  • Added the Amplification class, which purpose is the description of amplification function(s) subtended by an OMS CEP instance.
    • The amplification parameters are related to a given frequency range.
  • The Geolocation object shall be referenced by an Equipment/Device object, as it regards the physical aspects of network resources.
    • Esther Le Rouzic points out that the Geolocation is a necessary parameter for path computation.
    • Andrea Mazzini we need to review the relationships between physical and logical models, as optical impairment model cover both aspects.
  • Discussion on OMS CEP and bands. Still to be agreed whether an OMS CEP instance can represent multiple bands and/or be dedicated to a single band.
    • Noted that in case of OMS CEP band-specific, the same Amplification object instance can be referenced by more OMS CEPs, if the underlying amplifier is multi-band.