Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.


05 September 2017


  • @Kam LAM (FiberHome)

  • @Germano GASPARINI (SM Optics)

  • @Karthik SETHURAMAN (NEC)

  • @Malcolm BETTS (ZTE)

  • @Nigel DAVIS (Ciena)

  • @Rod LU (ZTE)

  • @Thomas KESSLER (DT)

  • @Thorsten Henize (Telefonica)

  • @Xiang YUN (Fiberhome)

  • @Yuji TOCHIO (Fujitsu)


  • Discuss Synchronization management model in G.sync-mgmt to provide feedback to ITU-T Q14/15

Discussion Items



  • Rod presented the recent updates to the G.sync-mgmt model
    • Updates done at the June Geneva meeting
      • Took the model description and UML in wd091014-41r1 (4/2017 Tokyo) as the base
      • Inserted the LpSpec and TerminationSpec between LayerProtocol and the 4 synchronization Pacs
      • The discussion noted that this is the Core model style. It is different from the TAPI style, in which the Specs directly specify the Ltp. Both style have valid justification.
      • Used the Specify stereotype for extending the 4 synchronization Pacs, instead of as conditional packages
      • 4 proposed attributes added
      • Separated the Sync IM from G.7711 and then import G.7711 as a package instead of taking some of the artefacts of G.7711 into the Sync Model for decoupling the two models
      • Migrated the Open Model Profiles of Sync IM to newest version (v0.2.11) to order to use the <Specify> association to replace current approach of using condition package association for the rationale of Spec model
    • Updates done per Nigel’s comment
      • Corrected the orientation/direction of the association in the UML diagrams by deleting them from the diagrams and then re-instate them from the XMI
      • Added the <<Experimental>> stereotype to all the attributes, object classes, and associations
      • Added “_” to the navigable association end
      • Added Comments/Documentation to the artifacts
  • To be done
    • To analyse the relationship between the profiles in G.8265.1, G.8275.1, G.8275.2 for the dataset members and the current attributes in the Sync IM, and then list their corresponding relation for each parameter to check which one is missing in the Sync IM
      • Expect Q13 input from its October meeting to be used by Q14 in its December meeting
  • Discussed
    • Relationship between NeTechSpecUnit and NetworkElement should be aggregation, instead of composition
      • Agreed
    • Suggest rename NeTechSpecUnit as ClockSpec
      • To be considered
    • NetworkElement is being dismantled in the Core model. May use ConstraintDomain to aggregate the NeTechSpecUnit (or ClockSpec) class
      • Pending on progress of the Core model in v1.4
  • In general the group is okay with the update and direction of G.sync-mgmt

Action Items