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 development of Optical Impairment UML model
  • Continue the discussion on layering recommendations
  • Continue the discussion on physical topology
5 minsNotes on TIP MUSTNigel Davis 

Nigel Davis provides the (public) link to TIP MUST IP SDN Controller NBI Technical Requirements, where layer 2 standard reference is IETF.

  • Considered that the reference standards for Carrier Grade Ethernet management should be MEF and ITU-T.
10 minsNotes on RIA review

Andrea Mazzini informs that in the TAPI RIA call of tomorrow the first item in agenda is the proritization of new Use Cases.

  • Compromise between delay of delivery vs. richness of content.
  • Ramon Casellas significant time is also necessary for the review of existing Use Cases, e.g. for the new agreed layerings.
  • Ramon Casellas people from other companies is showing interest in TAPI + Optical Impairments.
100 mins

Draft of Optical Impairment UML model

Andrea Mazzini 

Andrea Mazzini presents the updated UML diagram of the Photonic Profiles, specifically the model of the amplification function:

Discussion on the amplification model and how to correctly correlate these amplification parameters to the OMS CEP.

  • Nigel Davis shows this (and others) picture from "TR-512.2_OnfCoreIm-ForwardingAndTermination", to help the discussion:

Andrea Mazzini, the "ILA Node" purpose is not to represent an amplifier, rather the forwarding model which is provided by an underlying device. Analogous consideration for "ROADM node":

  • Agreed to consider a possible sequence of amplification functions.
  • Discussion on the better way to associate amplification impairments info to the CEP, considering:
    • possible distribution on two connected CEPs (the ILA node case), and
    • possible concentration on single CEP (the ROADM node case), and
    • possible bidirectional model of CEP.
  • Not yet reached a conclusion.

The MediaChannelPowerPac represents power measurements on a given spectrum. Agreed to clarify the "ingress/egress"terminology. As far as it is associated to a CEP, better reuse the codirectional boolean applied for tandem Connection Monitoring: