Child pages
  • 2022-05-26 OIMT Meeting notes

Versions Compared

Key

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

Date

Attendees

Agenda

  • Admin
    • Confirm location examples not in v1.6 (T75)
    • Plan for delivery and TIP MUST liaison
      •  Target delivery date
      •  TIP MUST liaison with "model tutorial" text
    • Discuss what is needed for the Equipment meeting
    • Report on OAM draft document (Andrea & Nigel)
  • ControlTask (Nigel)
  • Spec model review and agreement (Nigel)
  • AOB

Discussion items

Time

Item

Who

Notes

5 minAdminAll

Confirm location examples not in v1.6 (T75)

  •  It has been in moved to v2.1 in the bubble chart.


Plan for delivery and TIP MUST liaison (action Nigel Davis Hing-Kam Lam    Plan the delivery date for the TR and hence for the TIP/MUST tutorial work.

    •  Target delivery date
    •  TIP MUST liaison with "model tutorial" text


  •   Hing-Kam Lam Nigel Davis Prior to the v1.6 delivery, verify that the TIP MUST has no major changes in their architecture


Discuss what is needed for the Equipment meeting

  •   Defer discussion to  


Report on OAM draft document (Andrea & Nigel)

  •  Not much progress at the moment, but still aiming for  
35 55 minAction item

Actions

Action items completed

  •  

Action items discussed

Actions in black, action responses in blue and meeting notes from  in green and meeting notes from   in red

Control Task

This was not covered on  and will be added to the agenda for  

  • Nigel Davis  Definitions of task using Component-System principles (explaining the distinction) and show clear boundaries. Say what a task is and what not. Define recursion. Emphasize reuse. Place orchestration on a figure.
    • Considering the
      • Material in oimt2021.ND.005_OAM.pptx (version 4)
      • https://kestra.io/docs/concepts/flows.html
      • Component-System pattern as described in TR-512.A.4 (v1.5)
      • Various other considerations...
      • Use specialized term "ControlTask" to avoid terminology confusion
      • ControlTask: A definition of activity of a functional Component {hence it is opaque} that provides management-control capability.
        • By "activity" I mean externally visible behavior. Transfer function perhaps gives a better feel.
        • I am considering the Task as the definition here, but we may want to have an instance of running task and hence make it a thing with a definition.
        • Use "Transfer Functions"
        • Agreed that the following is sufficient for now
          • ControlTask: A functional Component that provides management-control capability where that capability is defined in terms of transfer functions.
      • As it is a Component, as described in TR-512.A.2, it:
        • has inputs and outputs
        • can be adjusted with policy and controls
          • In the case of the control task, these are all externally visible and provided via inputs.
        • has internal workflow
        • is described in terms of subordinate components
        • is... etc.
      • ControlTask capability (collection of transfer functions) is defined from the outside and hence its description does not vary due to internal hidden control
        • Other components expose capability that is defined from the inside.
      • To further clarify the component based definition for ControlTask...
        • It may take a set of inputs, process them, provide a set of outputs then complete/terminate.
          • The outputs may all be at the completion of the task or some may be at intermediate points
            • The outputs may directly update system state or may be streamed for use by other components
          • The inputs may all be available at the start of the task or they may be available at various points
            • The task will be initiated by the occurrence of some condition (trigger)
            • The inputs may be from monitored state or monitored stream
            • The task may pause to wait for an input, abandon if it does not have an input, skip the input etc.
        • It may run
          • as a single activity that terminates once complete
          • continuously with internal loops until requested to terminate via some state input
        • It may express its capability in terms of apparent control task flows that explain, in abstract, how the outputs are generated from the inputs
          • This is the definition of the transfer functions. 
          • A structure of apparent encapsulated ControlTasks with some stated flow
            • A flow may have loops etc.
            • An apparent ControlTask may have its capability expressed
        • It may express its capability in terms of a transfer function or some other structure that is not of a task form
        • It may be realized by subordinate control task flows
          • A structure of real control tasks with stated flow 
          • Flow is determined by trigger conditions that are caused by outputs from other tasks
            • Split is multiple tasks watching for the same trigger condition
            • Join of two requires two specific condition outputs (one from each) to cause the trigger condition
            • Alternative depends upon an output value
        • It may be realized by code (algorithms etc.)
          • There will be no deeper view of realization
          • There may be an expression of capability in terms of apparent encapsulated tasks with some stated flow 
      • Multiple instances of a specific type of ControlTask may run at the same time
        • A ControlTask instance will be running in some specific instance of flow and will be related to instances in the same instance of flow (needs more work here)
  •  Discussion STOPPED HERE


  •   DISCUSSION CONTINUED 
  • Nigel Davis  How the orchestrator interprets complex tasks with intermediate outputs with loops etc.
    • As above, the ControlTask is defined in terms of apparent ControlTasks
    • Clearly a ControlTask is designed and is potentially designed for both the provider ControlConstruct and client ControlConstruct (Orchestrator)
      • The Orchestrator may already be capable of dealing with the task in a hard coded way
  • Nigel Davis  Example of a complex task description in terms of an abstract workflow with intermediate output and loops etc.
  • Nigel Davis  Work a definition set for the "Task" space accounting for the fractal nature and the Component-System pattern aspect. Deal with "triggers" (events etc.), constraints etc.
    • See above
  • Nigel Davis  Set out some meaningful examples an interaction of "Tasks" to achieve some relevant outcome (e.g., service creation, restoration...). Note that the action "Nigel Davis    To study the boundaries of Job/Task, ControlConstruct, PC, CASC (algorithmic). Consider path computation as an example. Action item from 2020 OIMT Virtual Face to Face - Week of April 13should be covered by this action.
    • See above
    • Note that the ControlTask:
      • may be run as a PC or within a PC with other Tasks where that PC may be implemented with software running on one or more equipments as per model
      • may be initiated by a ControlConstruct or CASC which which is implemented as software running on one or more equipments
  • Nigel Davis  Provide a mapping from "Task" terminology to other terminology sets (e.g., Use Case, Workflow...)
  • The following is partly extracted from earlier in the minutes...
    • ControlTask
      • A functional Component that provides management-control capability where that capability is defined in terms of a Transfer Functions.
        • The whole defined transfer function is available and active
          • Note that the ControlTask defines a specific purposeful transfer functionality where the underlying componentry may be far more capable.
          • Perhaps need to adjust to one of the following (to emphasize that this is NOT the underlying/implementation component
            • "An Abstract Functional Component..." (recognizing that all functional components are abstract)
            • "An Apparent Functional Component..."
          • Achieves outcomes/goals etc.
          • <other notes from above to be added>
          • Covers all success and failure behaviors
          • Architected behavior...
      • Related Terms
        • Task
        • Job
        • Runnable Task (Kestra)
        • Activity
        • Use Case
        • Function
        • Action
    • TransferFunction (perhaps this should be specialized to ControlTaskTransferFunction?)
      • A statement of the capability of the ControlTask in necessary detail to enable a client to fully understand the externally visible characteristics of the ControlTask (i.e., how the outputs are generated from the inputs, or from any other relevant internal behavior) 
        • It may be expressed in terms of an apparent ControlTaskFlow that explain, in abstract, how the outputs are generated from the inputs
          • This is the definition of the transfer functions. 
        • It may express its capability in terms of a logic function, arithmetic function or some other structure that is not in a ControlTaskFlow form
      • Related Terms
        • ??
    • ControlTaskFlow
      • A structure of interconnected apparent/abstract ControlTasks where the structure expresses all possible flows (including cycles/loops) from exposed inputs to exposed outputs (which are the inputs and outputs of the ControlTask the ControlTaskFlow defines)
        • Each apparent ControlTask will have a defined Transfer Function
      • Related Terms
        • Workflow
        • Flow (Kestra)
        • Use Case sequence
        • Process
        • Procedure
        • Action Steps
    • Component
      • Uses the term Workflow
        • From earlier in the minutes:
          • It may be realized by subordinate control task flows
            • A structure of real control tasks with stated flow 
            • Flow is determined by trigger conditions that are caused by outputs from other tasks
              • Split is multiple tasks watching for the same trigger condition
              • Join of two requires two specific condition outputs (one from each) to cause the trigger condition
              • Alternative depends upon an output value
    • Capability: The (description of the) opportunity for a thing (e.g., Component) to carry out activities 
      • ControlTask capability (stated as a transfer function) is defined from the outside and hence its description does not vary due to internal hidden control
        • Other components expose capability that is defined from the inside.

DISCUSSION: Due to lack of time, just briefly highlight the new blue text below. Will go through that in  

Spec model review and agreement

  • Nigel Davis Take the spec model, prune out the stuff that are not relevant to simple layer hierarchy, look at how to apply the general principles (slide 32) notation to the stack of layers & rules, write it in the context of the original spec structure. Note that the action "Nigel Davis  To prune out the unneeded stuff from the current Spec document so that to show the Yang "when" and "must" of the Occurrence pattern. Action item from 2021 Sep 07-10 : OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face" is covered by this action.
    • Proposal: Additional TR on simplified use of spec that takes the spec model, prunes classes and associations that are not necessary for a basic usage then shows examples of usage,
      • During TAPI discussions on NEP/CEP model several multi-layer compact forms of CEP have been proposed. The internal structures are relatively complex including multiplexing reversal. These structures emphasize then need for a spec representations (it is necessary to enable the orchestrator to interpret the data of the structure). Some predefined patterns may be suitable as there are only a few cases of complexity. The apparent constraints are summarized below:
        • Complex order tends to go with fixed internal connectivity and simple 1:1 adapter flow
        • Connection flexibility options are limited to the patterns of the MTNM mapping mode property (although their may be some additional directional variety)
        • The adapter is complex in some cases
        • There are multiple LP occurrences in a single spec
        • The inter-LP flow is relatively simple not requiring full fledged  LpPortSpecs
      • For TAPI, it is expected that an equipment spec occurrence complex would have a related structure of NEP/CEP occurrences which where each CEP would reference a CEP spec (built following the simplified spec definition). The CEP spec structure would be defined to cover the extent of the cases anticipated so far with extension opportunities for more sophisticated cases. It is unlikely that the full capability of the spec model will be required for TAPI in the near future. Nevertheless, it is still important to enable the opportunity for full expansion.
      • Some examples are shown below:
  • Nigel Davis Construct simple spec example using layer hierarchy model for the OTN payload structure, try longhand form, correct number of occurrence set, based on some specific ports. Code it in JSON form of YANG. Note that the action "Nigel Davis  Lay out the spec model with sufficient occurrence pattern of equipment in it. Relate UML to Yang. Action item from 2021 Sep 07-10 : OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face" is superseded by this action.
  • Nigel Davis  Cover combinatorial rule for layer protocol options. "And" & "Or" in spec language.
  • Nigel Davis  Review IETF/IEEE documents and CH slides and merge as appropriate into simplified spec. Action item from 2021 Sep 07-10 : OIMT Virtual Face-to-Face

  


Action items re-dated 





0 minNext calls

Plan

  • Meeting planning proposal (where each meeting will deal with the corresponding actions (with the date of the meeting)):
    • Confirm location examples not in V1.6 (T75)
    • Task
    • Spec model review and agreement
    • Discuss what is needed for the Equipment meeting  
    • Andrea Mazzini Nigel Davis Report on OAM draft document
    • Plan for delivery and TIP MUST liaison
    •  Target delivery date
    •  TIP MUST liaison with "model tutorial" text
    •  Cancel due to public holiday etc.
      • Aggregate application to LTP
      • Brief update on streaming
      • Discuss what is needed for the Equipment meeting
      • Spec model review and agreement
    •  
      • OAM draft document review
      • Temporal draft document review
      • Equipment discussion/resolution and preparation for delivery of document
      • Validate progress and plan model and documentation development
        • Review all relevant minutes/action resolution and draft document progress against plan including
          • Streaming (T65)
          • Task (T57)
          • Equipment (T8a)
          • Temporal (T73)
          • Spec (T56)
          • OAM (T5)
          • Aggregate (T64b)
          • Views/Context (11b)
            • TR-512.A.15 (and corresponding TR-512.8)
            • This includes some aspects of controller zero trust (T78)
        • Consider progress on and plan for delivery of
          • Compute and storage (T36)
          • Media multipoint addition to .A.4 (T77)
        • Construct detailed action plan for delivery on target date  
    •  
      •  Review draft streaming document material (part of TR-512.8).
    •  
  • At each meeting we should check that we are on track for the planned items

Future calls agenda items for consideration

  • TIP/MUST papers (CH, ND)
  • Catalog / inventory storage application (CH, ND)
  • IETF work on physical inventory model (ND)
  • RBAC vs ABAC (June 2021 F2F meeting Tue 1.2 ) 
  • Finalize the write up on Multi-point Media Channel (later call) (Candidate for v1.6)
  • To recap the previous OIMT discussion on synchronization management IM (later call)
  • YANG augmenting 
  • Leo on location model

Action items

  •