- Outgoing Liaison Statements planned during the London meeting.
- Action item - Kam: Get the ITU-T LS (LS-112) text to Nigel
- London Meeting Action Items:
- Nigel Davis: Draft LSs to share the Control Model
- SG15 (as response)
- ZSM (as response)
- Malcolm Betts: Draft LSs to share the media model
- Explore how to send liaison to ONAP or not
- Nigel shared the draft response(s) for SG15, ZSM, and MEF/TOSCA
- Malcolm shared draft for SG15 (cc MEF)
| || || |
- Feedback on ONAP Modeling Sessions in ONS
- Nigel attended the Sunday March 25 session and Karthik and Kam attended the Friday March 30 session.
- There are major issues with the design patterns (composite/atomic, decorator) on the presented MCM model. The erronous cardinalitis of the associations cause infinite loop.
| ||TR-512 v1.4||Xiang|
| || ||Chris & Malcolm|
- ControlConstructs & NameSpace
- Chris reported that there were off-line correspondence with Nigel and Malcolm.
- Control access right (view), ConstraintDomain defines the scope/boundary,
- Outcome will be presented next week. Aim to schedule it in the early part of IM-D.
- Lifecycle updates on State Transition
- Generic UML model header information
- New stereotype "OpenModelStatement"
- Triggered by the YANG needs
- It has been discussed in IISOMI UML-YANG subteam
- Outcome of discussion is in iisomi2018.BZ.003.06_YANG-ModuleHeaderInformation.docx
- The profile is not on GitHub yet.
- Will include other updates, such as bitDefinition, and post the updated version of the profile onto GitHub
- Proposal 2 of bitsDefinition in the OpenInterfaceProfile
- There is general support of Proposal 2
- bitDefinition is the InterfaceProfile
- Agree tp formally liais the profile updates to other SDOs.
| ||TAPI||Karthik, Nigel|
- The TAPI team currently focus on UML-YANG-SWAGGER mapping. The tool chain has issues, which requires many manual fixes
- Issue of mapping UML reference to leafref (Issue #285). Xing is working on this
- The OTSi/Media model is being finalized.
- Nigel presented the photonic model,
- showing applying and how to interpreted the model in the TAPI context.
- Aggregated and Disaggregated solutions are considered.
| ||WT||Martin||Not discussed|
- Dave presented the MEF Liaison statement and the attachment
- 8.1.2 Physical Layer Service attribute and
- 8.2.3 Service Level specification Service attribute
- Comment - Nigel: Consider using OCL for specifying the attribute requirements
- Action item - Karthik Sethuraman & Andrea Mazzini: TAPI team to follow up on the supporting of the service attributes in connectivity service. And then for MEF to leverage in NRM.