equipment-instance does not make sense for ExpectedEquipment

[openBackhaul]

Problem: expected-equipment::manufactured-thing::equipment-instance contains serial-number and manufacture-date. (asset-instance-identifier is anyway a wrong duplicate to operator-augmented-equipment-instance::asset-instance-identifier.)

There seems to be no sense in expressing an expectation about the serial-number or the manufacture-date of a hardware component to be plugged in future.

Potential solutions: Considering that the ONF CoreIM defines a re-use of the same grouping in Equipment, ExpectedEquipment and ActualEquipment, the TransmitterEquipment Specification shall

• either request for not representing the EquipmentInstance class in the ExpectedEquipment
• or define and prescribe default values to be used in the EquipmentInstance class in the ExpectedEquipment.

[openBackhaul]

Decision during the LF ONMI x-haul call on 24th of April 2024: As the ONF CoreIM defines a re-use of the same grouping in Equipment, ExpectedEquipment and ActualEquipment, the expected-equipment::manufactured-thing::equipment-instance container exists and cannot be removed. Prescribing a default value to be permanently represented at an attribute means to deactivate the attribute. In this case an attribute of the CoreIM that is outside the scope of TR-532 (e.g. not listed in the TransmitterEquipment Spec.) would get blocked from being used for any other purpose. It is not intended by the x-haul group to block using the CoreIM, but to harmonize. Issue shall just be closed without any further activity.