|15 mins||General Administrative & Status||Nigel Davis|
- Next TAPI call:
- Skip Dec 25th & Jan 1st calls
- Joint ITU-T SG-15 Q14 & IEEE 802.1 CFM YANG/UML & ONF coordination call for G.8052.1
- Monday Dec 17, 8 AM EST - Kam provided feedback
- New version of CFM Yang (oimt2018.KL.011.00_ieee802-dot1q-cfm-yang_2018.12.10.zip) on https://github.com/YangModels/yang/tree/master/standard/ieee/802.1/draft. Updates address the 100+ comments from letter ballot. Bend has updated the UML model re-engineered from the CFM (uploaded to Core contributions page: oimt2018.BZ.001.10_PapyrusIeeeCfmOxygenWorkspace_181218.zip)
- Kam brought up a comment that was raised from the ONF OT-IM 11/20/2018 call on CFM UML that it would make more sense to swap the position of the Mep class and the MaintenanceAssociationMepList class, i.e., MaintenanceAssociation aggregates Mep and MaintenanceAssociationGroup aggregate MaintenanceAssociationMepList. The CFM YANG author explained that both ways are not wrong, but the current way (i.e., Mep is aggregated directly in MaintenanceAssociationGroup, which provides a handle to a unique pair of MD and MA) is more efficient (easier/quicker) to access the target Mep instance for configuration and operation on the Mep.
- CFM Yang stable but still open for comments
- Kam ran through G.8052.1 updates
- Bernd noted unnecessary level of containers has been removed but that causes challenges to identify a list for augmentation in the UML. Bernd will create a new UML-YANG mapping issue for the IISOMI team to discuss.
- Next call Jan 14.
- Kam will provide a link to the minutes. NOTE: Since ONF has been invited by Q14/15 to participate in the coordination call, Q14/15 can share the meeting documents, including the minutes, with ONF.
|45 mins||Photonic Media|
- Nigel asked if there were any concerns regarding the material discussed last week
- Stephane highlighted some concerns with the OTSiMC and SMC figures. There should be only on figure with MC
- Action: Nigel: Correct figures to show MC (and to delete OTSiMC figure). Provide notes that MC may be one or more OTSis as specified in ITU-T recs.
- The high level model allows multi-pointed MCA Connection and the same spectrum at all points
- The splitter propagates signal to many places.
- The NMC is an emergent thing.
- The allocation represented by the OTSiA level is distinct from the SMCA level. The SMCA level in a splitter case will propagate to many ports. The OTSiA will be point to point.
- The SMCA to OTSiA relationship is via the both the NEP-CEP hierarchy and the Connection-Link hierarchy.
- One of the associations is missing from TAPI ConnectivitySeviceSkeleton (Link to Connection)
- Discussion on NEP-Link and CEP-Connection. When should we provide these. Should the model be symmetric such that all layers look the same?
- Or what is the rule? Should we have a 1:1 rule?
- The navigation from NEP-CEP may be different to the navigation from Link to Connection as the OTSiA can be on the link under the SMC
- Pattern based rule is OK, layer name based rule is not OK
- Action: Stephane to send Karthik a complex photonic case that can use the same rules as the most simple case
- CSEP has server CSEP is being added.
- CEP and connection have UUID, Aggregated CEP and connection have local ID.
- Stephane indicated concern that the focus on the Assembly was not appropriate as for power management it is important to focus on the individual elements.
- Nigel pointed out that there was no loss of information and the management of Assembly helped enforce the rules of same ends and path
- There was no conclusion, but it was clear that there were differences of approach and that the focus on the Assembly was not agreed by all participants on the call.
Recap from last week:
|30 mins||Physical Equipment||Nigel Davis||Run through parts of the Core model and identify relevant structures and actions to take on each.|