1) Title: Administrivia - WG Status - Reporting on WG drafts not being
presented
Presenter: Chairs

Bo: Regarding the inventory location I-D, there is an open issue from
Med suggesting we are adding more descriptions on how to use this
informatio model and query device information from multiple locations.
The plan is to add an Operational Considerations section to describe how
to use this model.
After that it should be ready for WG LC

Mahesh: Who if anyone is joining the coordination calls with ITU-T?
Italo: I am joining these calls as Q14/15 participant but I will be
there.

2) Title: A YANG Network Data Model for Inventory Topology Mapping
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ivy-network-inventory-topology/

Presenter: Bo Wu

Italo: Do we really need bidirectional navigation from inventory to
topology? Expecially if we mark these attributes are RW, there is a big
risk of inconsistency.
IMHO, at a YANG interface, only one reference is needed (no stron
opionion on which one) and each application can traslate this
inforrmation into the association that it needs.

Med: The draft gives vendor the option to implement either one of the
two unidirectional associations or a bidirectional association. There
are operational considerations to be described if the bidirectional
association is RW.

Italo: yes but then there three different options for the implementation
and this could become a multi-vendor integration issue

Aihua: in the document you make the assumption of a 1:1 association
between NE and node. Would it be possible to have more complex
combinations? 1:N and M:1.

Italo: This is still an open issue in github.
In the CCAMP WG draft, we defined it as N:1 (multiple nodes can
reference the same NE) to cover the case of multi-layer NEs.
However, thinking further I think that a 1:1 association would be
simpler. The topology model has enough abstraction and multi-layer
navigation tools to describe how a node (1:1 mapped with the NE) can be
multi-layer and support multiple nodes in different layers.

Aihua: is this described in the draft?

Italo: I think we need to take a decision as IVY WG and then document it
in the draft

Olga: I agree with a single navigation to keep it simple

Italo: regarding the link to cable association, I can understand the
value to have a simple solution for a specific and common use case.
I would suggest in this case to develop JSON examples to describe how
the simple use case can be described with the direct association or
using the generic solution and make an informed decision on the need for
a simpler solution for a specific scenario in addtion to the generic
solution. I can help developing the JSON examples.

Nigel: Commenting on 2 references vs one way. In TAPI we concluded on
single direction.

3) Title: YANG Network Data Model of Network Inventory Software
Extensions
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ivy-network-inventory-software/

Presenter: Bo Wu

4) Title: A YANG Module for Entitlement Inventory
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ivy-entitlement-inventory/

Presenter: Diego Lopez

Daniele: Why did you decide to have the capability framework in NMOP and
the capabiltiy model in IVY?

Nigel: Capability is complex and can be endless. In IVY we want to
address specific usages (inventory capabilities)

Reshad: The draft in NMOP has not yet been adopted and there is no
discussion about adopting it yet.

Swamy: Is the scope of the draft covering only the things actually
present in the network or what can be planned and installed in the
future?

Camilo: Only what it is there. This includes something that has been
bought but maybe not yet deployed. What we do not have a more
user-oriented type of licence.

5) Title: A YANG Data Model for Passive Network Inventory
Draft:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ygb-ivy-passive-network-inventory/

Presenter: Aihua Guo

Italo (on Zulip): ITU-T work is the GSTR.OPIM: Technical report on
optical physical infrastructure resources management for transport
networks

Mahesh: Suggest to work on the definition of what can be considered
element for passive inventory and what are not.For example should
optical cable be considered part of passive and instead power cable.

Roberto: Roberto suggest to consider as part of passive inventory where
the signal is there and is crossing the element.

Mahesh: One possible definition for what should be part of passive
inventory is to see its relationship to the network element. If it is
enabling the network device to do "networking", it should be included.
At the same time, while a power cable connects to a network device, it
is not enabling the device towards "networking".

Mahesh: To comment on what Roberto mentioned, it appears that optical
elements like cable and splitters are important, so maybe the initial
focus should be on the passive inventory of the optical elements.

Kent: Please also include optical splices in passive inventory.

Poll: is passive inventory in scope of actual charter?

Result: agreement on this

Mahesh: Please make sure we agree on the definition of "passive
inventory" before we adopt the draft, so we know what we are adopting.

6) Title: Equipment Capability Application
Draft:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-davis-ivy-equipment-capability-application/

Presenter: Nigel Davis

Reshad: For the framework in NMOP do you expect to have any type of
capability?

Nigel: NMOP provides teh vehicle through which other working groups can
provide capabilities.

Swamy: This is interesting work but some of this information cannot be
expressed using YANG and may not be consumed by a controller

Nigel: right. We may also consider whether the gaps can be addressed by
YANG-next.

Diego: There is another draft in NMOP focusing on how to exchange
policies. A proposal in that draft is that YANG will transport strings
that are not purely YANG. This could be the case as well.

Daniele (for Mahesh): do you think the actual charter covers this work
or do we need to update our charter (assuming there is interest in the
WG to work on this)

Mahesh: We would probably need to recharter but leave me the flexibility
to change my answer at a later stage.

Nigel: the scope is related to the capabilities of the inventory objects

Daniele: I agree with Nigel. Capabilities is a big topic, which is
closer to NMOP, but here we are focusing on the inventory part and could
fit into IVY. Probably recharting is needed but should fit here.