MEG/MEP/MIP Direction vs. UP/DOWN or resp. Contradirectional/Codirectional attributes

TAPI OAM: 1) Remove "direction" attribute from Meg and Mep classes. 2) Remove "direction" attribute from OamConstraint class. 3) Evaluate the need of layerProtocolName attribute of OamConstraint class. 4) megLevel attribute in OamConstraint class: evaluate whether to move to technology specific models. 5) Add "codirectionalDown" boolean attribute to Mep class.

Note that Ethernet Mip already foresees "isFullMip" boolean: "This attribute indicates whether the MIP is a full MIP (true) or a down-half MIP (false)." Up-half MIP not foreseen by G.8052. Regarding ODU, shall we assume the MIP is always "half" - as ODU MIP is actually Path Overhead Monitoring function? If the case, then we need to add "codirectionalDown" boolean to ODU MIP. Doing so, it is possible to manage two half MIPs on same bidirectional CEP, monitoring each one a different direction.

From G.8052-201812:

"TRUE identifies that the sink part of the OAM function and the sink part of the containing CTP handle the same signal direction (i.e., the TCM MEP, MIP and TCS is facing the server layer of the containing CTP). FALSE identifies that the sink part of the OAM function and the sink part of the containing CTP handle the opposite signal direction."

From P802.1Qcx/D1.0:

typedef mp-direction-type { type enumeration { enum down { value 1; description "Down maintenance point, where CFM protocol messages are dispatched away from the MAC Relay entity."; } enum up { value 2; description "Up maintenance point, where CFM protocol messages are dispatched towards the MAC Relay entity."; } } description "Indicates the direction in which the Maintenance association (MEP or MIP) faces on the Bridge Port."; }

Open-Network-Models-and-Interfaces-ONMI / TAPI

MEG/MEP/MIP Direction vs. UP/DOWN or resp. Contradirectional/Codirectional attributes #385