Hi, The issue tracker has been used extensively to discuss issues over the last week, and has been used in the call as well to steer discussion, so this seems to work very well. On the call were Aaron, Freek, Roman, Jeroen and Chin Propose to close (with reject status): https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6540 - Relate BidirectionalPorts https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6487 - Virtual Node concept Both have been rejected, Virtual Node with the note that this can be described using the "implementedBy" relation. https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6537 - Implicit relations Has been discussed extensively. We are in agreement that hasTopology, hasNode, hasPort can be defined using inclusion. However, it is still up for debate how to handle the explicit definitions of these Relations. Should parsers still accept this or not? Should clients write this or not? Please use ticket above to add your opinion. https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6545 - serialCompoundLink has been extensively discussed on the tracker, moves into Last Call https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6550 - source/sink Relations isSource & isSink is accepted, moved into Last Call We did identify an issue with inverse relations though, a new item has been opened for that: https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6553?nav=1 - allowing inverse relations https://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6542 - VLAN Has been agreed upon, moved into Last Call. Some questions about return traffic being a switch feature, not a VLAN feature per se were raised. However, this is a minor issue and this is the best way to describe it. Next call will be on April 5th, same time, same place.