Open APIs

Expand all | Collapse all

TMF641. ServiceRefOrValue.state why not mandatory?

  • 1.  TMF641. ServiceRefOrValue.state why not mandatory?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 24, 2020 08:58
    Edited by Igor Veliev Aug 24, 2020 09:02

    Hello, community.

    I have a question related to TMF 641.

    https://projects.tmforum.org/wiki/display/PUB/TMF641+Service+Ordering+API+User+Guide+v4.0.1
    https://projects.tmforum.org/wiki/display/PUB/TMF641B+Service+Ordering+API+Conformance+Profile+v4.0.0

    Why ServiceRefOrValue.state is not mandatory while state is mandatory in TMF640?
    Isn't it normal scenario when TMF641 is like a bulk for TMF640?


    ------------------------------
    Igor Veliev
    Netcracker Technology
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: TMF641. ServiceRefOrValue.state why not mandatory?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 25, 2020 03:15
    Hi Igor,
    For my perspective, the presence in the serviceOrderItem of an action to be performed allow to not pass the service state for each orderItem. Indeed the request is to add, modify, delete, nochange a service and it could be up to the server side to have rule to compute the service state. If I want to change some service characteristic value of an active service (without requesting any service state change), or if I request a service termination I probably don't need each time to specify service state.

    Hope it helps

    Ludovic

    ------------------------------
    Ludovic Robert
    Orange
    My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: TMF641. ServiceRefOrValue.state why not mandatory?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 25, 2020 04:44
    Thanks for the quick reply Ludovic,

    You are undoubtedly right about "modify", "delete", and "noChange" actions.
    But in the case of "add", wouldn't the service state be mandatory?
    Or do you mean that the default target service state in the "add" case should be "active" but can be overridden?
    Maybe it's better to explicitly specify the state in the "add" case to make system behavior more transparent and predictable for requester?

    ------------------------------
    Igor Veliev
    Netcracker Technology
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: TMF641. ServiceRefOrValue.state why not mandatory?

    TM Forum Member
    Posted Aug 25, 2020 05:52
    Igor,

    I will not go as far as indicate that for add the service state is mandatory (to not constraint implem) but I'm aligned with you to indicate that as a 'best practise' it is recommended to provide it.

    ------------------------------
    Ludovic Robert
    Orange
    My answer are my own & don't represent necessarily my company or the TMF
    ------------------------------