More Suggestions

Our latest operator suggestion/comment is for clarification of the relationship between ExperiaSphere’s example and the TMF work on service delivery and federation.  The former of these would be the Service Delivery Framework and successor Software-Enabled Services, and the latter the IPsphere work.

We will update the document to provide some additional detail on the TMF standards relationship, but because we are not currently a member of the body we don’t have the latest information on either of these two topics.  Our last review of the material suggested that the TMF was imposing a much stricter separation of service logic and service management and that its federation work was focusing on internetwork connection and settlement for packet services more than general federation of service-layer assets.  That would mean that ExperiaSphere has functional goals that are a superset of the TMF work, making it hard to map between the two.  We do note that any of the interfaces, whether protocol-based or API-based, in ExperiaSphere are presented as abstractions, meaning encapsulated in Java Classes.  We believe that this makes it relatively easy to support any standard interface that can convey the proper information.  Where TMF defines such an interface, the model would support it.  Where an interface represents a simple exchange of an XML package, the process of creating support for the interface in ExperiaSphere would be even simpler; it’s an XML transformation, in essence.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.