MEETING AGENDA

1. Comments against issue 92 initial closure - TMOC-AIP-2007-163 (see: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-163.doc)
I. Review of the current working text revision TMOC-AIP-2007-150R3 – see at: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-150R3.doc
II. Review of Alcatel-Lucent suggested editorial modifications
III. Review of Living List draft:
a. The living list template - http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-159R1.doc
b. Living list versus modification to the spec itself and thus delaying its publication - the TMOC chair recommended that we "stick with the spirit that we has during last week’s TF meeting – i.e., seek to move substantive comments/issues and agreements to the Living List – and *not* delay publication. The TMOC Chair guidance that was provided last week is below:
i. If members have Substantive comments, I (as the Chair of TMOC) am requesting flexibility regarding the how we handle the comments (e.g., using a Living List approach). Based on the Task Force meeting this week, the Task Force seems very motivated to take this approach (we have an initial item on the Living List already). This approach will allow us to both handle the comments appropriately and *not* delay publication (given the importance of the document to the industry and the delivery commitment to the ATIS CIO Council). Naturally, each comment must be considered on a case-by-case basis."
Approval of issue statement “Living List Update for issue 92 IPTV OSS FRA” - see http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-167.xls)
c. Summary of email correspondence regarding the first issue of the living list (against requirement TMOC.IPTV.OSS.PQM.020.090) - Suggestion of Connie, J.R. and Linda regarding the following 4 statements:
i. Consistency: To be consistent with the rest of the requirements in this document, i.e., high-level, it is not appropriate to refer to a specific protocol at this stage of the specification.
ii. Use of RTCP XR is not required by IIF. If the protocol is not required in the network resources, the OSS will not have any touch point from which to collect the data.
iii. IIF does require the use the DSL Forum TR-069 protocol for management of CPE, e.g., Set Top box. TR-069 presents a different mechanism for PM metric collection.
iv. Even if network resources implement RTCP-XR, mandating OSS use of this protocol is likely to produce non-scalable solution and an intermediate EML collection and aggregation function would be required.
• Connie+ J.R.: Completed IIF documents have not required TR-069 for QoS monitoring. ATIS-0800004, QoS Framework, lists both TR-069 and RTCP-XR as measurement protocol examples. The IIF (ARCH) Remote Management of Devices draft document currently says TR-069 will be used, plus any needed enhancements identified by IIF. => at this point all we can say is that the IIF has not decided on protocols for QoS video monitoring.
• Connie+ J.R.: It is suggested that the 2nd and 3rd bullets (colored in red) be replaced with the following: IIF has not determined what protocols and methods will be used for video performance data. ATIS-0800004, QoS Framework, lists both TR-069 and RTCP-XR as measurement protocol examples. It is pre-mature to require support of RTCP-XR at this time.
• Connie+ J.R.+Linda: It is proposed deleting the 4th bullet (colored in olive). The protocol, as well as its scalability, is not within the scope of the document. The 1st bullet covers this.
• Linda:
o The RTCP XR is an interface collection protocol and as such the RTCP XR in our document is specific EML interface specification requirements, while the Joint IPTV OSS team decided (during its establishment meeting in Washington DC) to avoid specific EML interface specification requirements.
o ATIS IIF hasn't finalized any recommendation of data collection protocol, so there may be no RTCP XR "touch point" for the collection of the data available for the OSS.
o TR-069 is an alternative (possibly conflicting) method for collecting pm data from the consumer network domain.
o All competing solutions for pm data collection from home devices will need evaluation as to scalability in order to present a viable solution
2. Action items from last call – see at: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-166.doc
3. Finalization of the High level Req. & Arch Spec – approval process
a. Call for Consensus on Path Forward for the IPTV OSS Working Text Document
4. Review of ATIS IPTV Dictionary issue statement – see contribution: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-162.xls
5. Liaison letter to ITU-T (SG-4 NGNMFG and SG-13 IPTV-FG)
6. Cooperation with TMF:
a. work register status update:
i. TMOC-2007-003.zip - regarding mTOP service management - It only states “gain information and understanding concerning the ATIS TMOC work on IPTV Management“, so that is generic enough that the content of the Work Register would not even need to be changed
ii. TMOC-AIP-2007-029 – eTOM - GB921D Rel 6.0 ver. 6.1 – was it updated to Release 7.0?
iii. TMOC-AIP-2007-030 – eTOM GB921F v4.6
iv. SLAM – As part of the work register, ATIS have agreed to provide feedback/comment into the development of Release 2.0 of the application note:
1. A draft working copy of this effort is available on the TMF’s CWS, Laurent (who is also editor of this document) can indicate the exact location of the latest version.
2. It is suggested that we join the end of the SLAM next conference call to answer any questions etc.
b. SDF: Landscape TF – presentation and report on SDF – see http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-156R1.ppt
c. Meeting with Martin Creaner & Tony Richardson
d. Benchmark
7. Next steps - Work on issue 93 – Ordering API – Connie’s proposed work plan for Issue 93, the IPTV Ordering Framework and APIs see at: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-164.doc

A new index of all the TF documents is available at: http://contributions.atis.org/UPLOAD/TMOC/AIP/TMOC-AIP-2007-152R3