Details
-
Architectural Decision
-
Resolution: Unresolved
-
None
-
None
Description
While trying to integrate TMC with other subsystems including MCCS in the LOW ITF, we encountered a few unexpected results as below:
I think these are mostly by design, in which case we need to raise a change request (or an ADR) than an SKB.
Test Steps:
1. TMC sends a request to MCCS to assign resources with Station 1, Station 2 and Station 3 as parameters.
2. MCCS responds back with "Unsuccessful" result because it has no Station 3 (station 3 is faulty whatever may be is the reason).
Expected results:
MCCS and TMC shall continue with reduced number of stations (and beams) and let operator (i.e. operations) decide if it is worthwhile to continue.
MCCS (or any subsystem) should always send what resources it was successful allocating, that way the Operator is aware of how much of the request was successful when it is not a full assignment.
Possible error scenarios:
1. In the case that a resource does not exist but is requested in the ""AssignResources" command - This is a possible case because as an interim solution for AA0.5, an operator (as opposed to a Resource Manager) would keep track of resources manually and because human is involved, there is a possibility for an error in sending the request with a non-existent resource (as given in the test steps above)
2. It is possible that a resource does exist in the list of available resources but has gone faulty while the resource allocation happened and hence that particular resource is not allocated.