Opening Session Led by:
Agenda as modified was agreed.
Meeting minutes
2016.583, 2016.584, 2016.613, 2016.614,2016.629, 2016.632 and 2016.637 approved.
Liaisons
2016.704 - RPF Managed Objects draft for G.997.2
Latency question is perhaps more Architecture related. Liaison was briefly reviewed.
Commscope to look at the ETSI liaison.
Will be reviewed in detail during the joint session.
2016.705 - Managed objects used by the DPU rather than used by the PMA.
Question around where the state machine would run as the expectation would be that it would be the DPU running the state machine rather than the PMA.
Relating to the software image of the G.fast DPU.
Mauro - question on if the code to that goes to the unit is the full code or separate for the different parts of the DPU. It would be the entire DPU code.
Reviewed in the joint session tomorrow.
2016.867 - SELT in g.fast deployment
Mainly for PhyTX. Expectation to cover in the joint session, but there is a wish to have a teleconference to cover if needed before the next SG15/Q4 meeting.
Update on FTTdp management interop project stream
Now WT-355 & WT-371 have passed final ballot, then we need to start getting contributions to progress OD-374
Update on YANG
YANG Models Advice to not to include specific revision dates. - Removed the revision dates Mike has some concerns especially over when we have test specifications we will need revision dates. If we don't, then we have a moving goalpost. Ken - think it is simpler. Just use the version by the supported The module has a specific revision date. It is about how the modules reference each other. All this is doing is removing from the modules itself the versions of the other modules. Always inside the module, but filename will have revision date on the file. So where are we removing the date from - If we have module A wanting to inport Module B, then rather than importing a date specific version, it will just pick up the latest version.
The Revision date of each individual file will be set to 18th July 2016 (Date of FB approval). The Revision comment to reference the approval will have the approval and publication date. The BBF URL will be added as part of the "organisation" statement
The organisation statement was shown to the group
Any objections to the above changes - None
Software IPR
The New IPR policy is now in force from 24th June. There is a requirement that before submitting any contribution of software/ data models the form in Appendix A of the IPR policy needs to be filled in. DIscussion for having it apply to an individual or all memebers of a company and if it applies to just a project or multiple projects or various grouping of. The policy is in force and there is a short grace period and any such contributions will be discussed but it is a requirement of the author to ensure the form is filled in retrospectively.
What happens at this meeting? - We proceed as normal at present.
There is a webpage that shows who has filled in the form.
Update on OD-374
Next steps on FTTdp management interoperability
The FTTdp management interop PS started a long time ago, but we have had no contributions apart from an outline framework. This is expected as we haven't had the management models available. Now the modules are published there is better ground to publish the test plan.
Mauro mentioned that he would like to go a little further than just that and have a look at the opportunities for the BBF to get into the NETCONF/YANG testing. The is an opportunity for working on the test plan and working on DPU-PMA test plan with a common part about the parts that are common and can be reused. e.g. NETCONF channel establishment. It could also help in stating how we do tests for SDN enabled devices. We could have a double stimulus to work on this and enable reuse within other projects.It could also be abstrated away from the PMA and DPU.
The PMA tends to be provided from the same vendor as the DPU as a piece of software that will run in some virtualised environment. This removes some of the pressure for the interop becuase of this bookending. The point of the DPU-PMA YANG model is to drive the interoperability.
We are also looking to drive the NBI interface from the PMA which is key to the operator.
There was a comment that there is nothing wrong with this approach if there are common items, but as we haven't had any work on it so far, then let's not try to add lots of additional work to do.
It was seen that there is value in broadning the scope to take into account the some of this commonality, but we need to identify the expertise to help contribution. It may be that we start with the expertise within the FTTdp area as this is where the focus is at the moment and then potentially expand.
AP - Chris & Sven : Make Michael Fargano aware of this point.
There will be parts in the DPU session establishment that are specific 301 items, but there could be standards just for opening the session.
AP - Christopher Croot & Sven Ooghe: Request to stimulate the discussion at the SC level.
AP - Christopher Croot - Requestt the secretariat to create the OD-374 document on ARO
301i2 - WT review latest version - Presented by Mike Shaffer
The latest version of the WT was presented and the updates to 301i2 between Prague and this meeting were shown. The revision was accepted as presented.
Issues list - presented by Dong Wei
The latest version of the issues list was presented and the updates were shown. The latest revision was accepted as presented.
General WT-301i2 Discussion
We have spent a long time preparing Issue 2 and we have a spreadsheet with the items that we considered important - bbf2015.1126. Within this all the items that we have done are marked green. Those in yellow have been started and those left as white have not been started. We still have quite a few topics that are marked as 1st priority items but have not yet been started.
One item that has been added was a suggestion that a requirement to use the YANG models as described in 355 should be added into 301i2. This was supported by the group.
There is a wish to wrap up the current issue as quickly as possible and we need to get folks to pick up those items that need completing and drive them through. Even if we just covered the yellow items.
Yan Erreygers - (Commscope) took the action to look at the ETSI TM6 RPF spec.
Timescales for completion of the issue were discussed and it was agreed to aim for an agreed SB version out of the Q4 meeting so that we would be doing SB CR in the Q1 2017 meeting. We would need several interim teleconferences to pick up the requirements with an expectation to get the owners of the items in the spreadsheet covered.
AP - Sven Ooghe & Christopher Croot to send an email to the exploder detailing the agreed timescales and call to complete the open topics
There were 12 people attending the session :
Ken Kerpez, Assia Inc.
Sumithra Bhojan, AT&T
Christopher Croot, BT
Marcin Drzymala, Orange
Jan Erreygers, CommScope
Andreas Frangou, Cyta
Thomas Haag, Deutsche Telekom A/G
Shrinivas Joshi, Nokia
Lincoln Lavoie, UNH InteOperability Lab
William Lupton, BBF
Sven Ooghe, Nokia
Marta Seda, Calix Networks
Mike Shaffer, Nokia
Mauro Tilocca, Telecom Italia S.p.A
Dong Wei, Huawei