Way forward discussion: SM Optics feedback Vincenzo Sestito, SM Optics May 9th, 2017

Compliance with IEEE Standards Policies and Procedures Subclause 5.2.1 of the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws states, "While participating in IEEE standards development activities, all participants...shall act in accordance with all applicable laws (nation-based and international), the IEEE Code of Ethics, and with IEEE Standards policies and procedures." The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution is subject to The IEEE Standards copyright policy as stated in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, section 7, http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/bylaws/sect6-7.html#7, and the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, section 6.1, http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect6.html The IEEE Standards patent policy as stated in the IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws, section 6, http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6, and the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual, section 6.3, http://standards.ieee.org/develop/policies/opman/sect6.html

Next Generation Fronthaul Interface IEEE 1914 Next Generation Fronthaul Interface Jinri Huang, huangjinri@chinamobile.com Way forward discussion: SM Optics feedback Date: 2017-05-09 Author(s): Name Affiliation Phone [optional] Email [optional] Vincenzo Sestito SM Optics vincenzo.sestito@sm-optics.com

Q1: could we agree on the suggested 4 perspectives? Proposed framework organization from Dallas meeting SMO proposal for organization/contents change Perspective 1: NGFI network Perspective 1: NGFI Node Network scope Perspective 3: O&M / Resiliency Perspective 4: Security Perspective 5: Synchronization Perspective 2: NGFI network Perspective 2: NGFI Node Node scope Perspective 3: O&M SM Optics proposal is for a «top-down» approach, which identifies first the network suitable for NGFI transport (layers, technologies, functionalities, topologies), addressing as a consequence, the requested features at node level. Our proposal is for including in the framework, resiliency and synchronization, as well. Perspective 4: Security

Q2: Could we agree on the requirement classification for perspective 1 (NGFI node) Proposed Perspective 1 requirements from Dallas meeting SMO comments: All of these points should be developed at network level, first, resulting consequently in requirements for NGFI node, as well. O&M Resiliency Security Synchronization Requirements coming from Perspectives 1, 3, 4, 5 need to be considered for NGFI node, as well. Insert Title here Insert Date here

Q3: who can lead the requirement development for each perspective? Proposed framework organization SMO comments: We are available to contribute on the following perspectives: Perspective 1, 3, 5 (at network level) Perspective 2 (at node level) Insert Title here Insert Date here