Open APIs

Hi,

In TMF638 V4 spec, i see a new attribute 'isBundle' added to represent whether service is bundle/atomic. I don't see any structure defined to pass bundle orders. I would like to know how can we support bundle orders with current model structure.  A list of services (bundle) together come in input request for service creation/update in POST/PATCH calls ?

------------------------------
dileep narla
Oracle Corporation
------------------------------

Hi Dileep
You can create structure in the following ways:

• At order level, since order items can contain sub-order items
• At service level, since services can contain sub-services

It's up to you and your business needs how to represent the service containment.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for the quick reply. If the decomposition happens at order management level, will service API expects multiple CFS within one request ? Or service API always receive one CFS at a time in one request ?

------------------------------
dileep narla
Oracle Corporation
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 04, 2022 02:57
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

Hi Dileep
You can create structure in the following ways:

• At order level, since order items can contain sub-order items
• At service level, since services can contain sub-services

It's up to you and your business needs how to represent the service containment.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------

It's completely up to you how you implement your service order API, of course your consumer (in TMF ODA this would be some BSS layer) needs to understand how to do decomposition according to the way you have structured your services.

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 04, 2022 03:06
From: dileep narla
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for the quick reply. If the decomposition happens at order management level, will service API expects multiple CFS within one request ? Or service API always receive one CFS at a time in one request ?

------------------------------
dileep narla
Oracle Corporation
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: Feb 04, 2022 02:57
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

Hi Dileep
You can create structure in the following ways:

• At order level, since order items can contain sub-order items
• At service level, since services can contain sub-services

It's up to you and your business needs how to represent the service containment.

Hope it helps

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.

In  IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

the authors  concluded that the best practice is to position product spec as restriction of a single  CFS meaning that bundling should be either with Product spec/ product offering  or CFS specs but not across the boundary .  This requires creation of a e2e CFS that bundles a number of CFS ( see IG1224 NaaS Service Management v5.1.0 for network examples )
. the reasoning was to make the decoupling between ODA core commerce and Production more straightforward. However this is not a restriction imposed by the APIs but a best practice proposed for ODA


------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect
------------------------------

There are those who would argue that this e2e CFS concept is an artificial construct that actually complicates the mapping (and creates additional storage requirements in the service inventory).
Additionally, the concept needs validation for complex orders, e.g.:

• non-provide order (change) for Product that might need cease and provide at Service level (e.g. bandwidth upgrade in Product with change of technology at Service level)
• provide order (new) for Product that might need change at Service level (e.g. flat-share where tenant A's existing Product is based on a Service, and tenant B's new Product can re-use that Service).

So there needs to be some discussion on how the translation between Product and Service works (in both directions).

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 07, 2022 05:16
From: Dave Milham
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

In  IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

the authors  concluded that the best practice is to position product spec as restriction of a single  CFS meaning that bundling should be either with Product spec/ product offering  or CFS specs but not across the boundary .  This requires creation of a e2e CFS that bundles a number of CFS ( see IG1224 NaaS Service Management v5.1.0 for network examples )
. the reasoning was to make the decoupling between ODA core commerce and Production more straightforward. However this is not a restriction imposed by the APIs but a best practice proposed for ODA


------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect
------------------------------

That's an interesting piece of feedback . the main consider in IG 1233 was decoupling for which I guess the price is additional storage. However there is and operational aspect to this discussed in IG1224.
We are about to re open IG1233 and it would be good to get these complex order examples into the next version whcih are more b2b than reatil oriented. I'll get he author to contact you

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 07, 2022 09:01
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

There are those who would argue that this e2e CFS concept is an artificial construct that actually complicates the mapping (and creates additional storage requirements in the service inventory).
Additionally, the concept needs validation for complex orders, e.g.:

• non-provide order (change) for Product that might need cease and provide at Service level (e.g. bandwidth upgrade in Product with change of technology at Service level)
• provide order (new) for Product that might need change at Service level (e.g. flat-share where tenant A's existing Product is based on a Service, and tenant B's new Product can re-use that Service).

So there needs to be some discussion on how the translation between Product and Service works (in both directions).

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: Feb 07, 2022 05:16
From: Dave Milham
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

In  IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

the authors  concluded that the best practice is to position product spec as restriction of a single  CFS meaning that bundling should be either with Product spec/ product offering  or CFS specs but not across the boundary .  This requires creation of a e2e CFS that bundles a number of CFS ( see IG1224 NaaS Service Management v5.1.0 for network examples )
. the reasoning was to make the decoupling between ODA core commerce and Production more straightforward. However this is not a restriction imposed by the APIs but a best practice proposed for ODA


------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect

Thank you @David Milham for flagging this discussion and I agree with @Jonathan Goldberg that there are many scenarios, especially in B2B, where a simple mapping approach may end up adding complexity (I understand your flat-share example is B2C).  We have started to build out B2B implications in IG 1233.  Would definitely appreciate your input there. ​​I will reach out via email.

------------------------------
Greg Herringer
IBM Corporation
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Feb 07, 2022 09:12
From: Dave Milham
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

That's an interesting piece of feedback . the main consider in IG 1233 was decoupling for which I guess the price is additional storage. However there is and operational aspect to this discussed in IG1224.
We are about to re open IG1233 and it would be good to get these complex order examples into the next version whcih are more b2b than reatil oriented. I'll get he author to contact you

------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect
------------------------------


Original Message:
Sent: Feb 07, 2022 09:01
From: Jonathan Goldberg
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

There are those who would argue that this e2e CFS concept is an artificial construct that actually complicates the mapping (and creates additional storage requirements in the service inventory).
Additionally, the concept needs validation for complex orders, e.g.:

• non-provide order (change) for Product that might need cease and provide at Service level (e.g. bandwidth upgrade in Product with change of technology at Service level)
• provide order (new) for Product that might need change at Service level (e.g. flat-share where tenant A's existing Product is based on a Service, and tenant B's new Product can re-use that Service).

So there needs to be some discussion on how the translation between Product and Service works (in both directions).

------------------------------
Jonathan Goldberg
Amdocs Management Limited
Any opinions and statements made by me on this forum are purely personal, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the TM Forum or my employer.


Original Message:
Sent: Feb 07, 2022 05:16
From: Dave Milham
Subject: TMF638 Representation of bundle service

In  IG1233 Product & Service Modelling Best Practices – Conforming to ODA v2.0.0

the authors  concluded that the best practice is to position product spec as restriction of a single  CFS meaning that bundling should be either with Product spec/ product offering  or CFS specs but not across the boundary .  This requires creation of a e2e CFS that bundles a number of CFS ( see IG1224 NaaS Service Management v5.1.0 for network examples )
. the reasoning was to make the decoupling between ODA core commerce and Production more straightforward. However this is not a restriction imposed by the APIs but a best practice proposed for ODA


------------------------------
Dave Milham
TM Forum, Chief Architect