Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

Date

Attendees

Goals

Discussion items

5 minsAdministrative

Next Review Call:  osing OIMT slots D and E.


1TAPI Delivery plan

Arturo Mayoral asks for a plan of 2.1.3 delivery, for further discussion as it would be better to avoid adding many features to a "temporary" fork.


2RESTCONF

General agreement on possible performance issues.

Arturo Mayoral clarifies that the focus of the document is more on the way Server organizes its network model, rather than on implementation details of the API.

Pedro Amaral, as far as this is a "Reference Implementation Agreement" document, API implementations are in the scope.

  • Arturo Mayoralwill add a dedicated section "Protocol Performance Considerations".

3TR-527

Agreed that TR-527 needs to be updated, as a part of TAPI 2.4 plan regarding documentation enhancement, see TAPI Roadmap.


4

Table 3: Minimum subset required of TAPI RESTCONF Data API

Agreed that only ConnectivityService allows "write" operations (POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE). All other entities are GET only.

5Notification

Agreed to remove the option to use the RPC create-notification-subscription-service, leaving only option the standard RESTCONF notification subscription mechanism. Agreed that RESCONF notification mechanism is a common industry choice.

Nevertherless agreed to keep the RPC in the TAPI UML, because (Karthik Sethuraman):

  1. TAPI implementation is not restricted to YANG, e.g. could also be Open API
  2. Backward compatibility, at most the RPC can be removed in version 3.0

6OTSiG and OTSiAAgreed to use only OTSiA in the document, as OTSiG appears redundant for management purposes.

7Transitional Link

Besides Transitional Link, this version of the document introduces an alternative model for the OTSi - ODU transition, the multi layer Node, where OTSi CEP will have ODU NEP as client-node-edge-point.

Nigel Davis asks whether Client Controller shall potentially manage both options, answer is yes.


8to be continued




















































Action items

  •  





  • No labels