Release Review: QoSBooking r2.1 (rc Sync26)

[camara-release-automation]

Release Review: r2.1 rc

This PR finalizes the reviewable release content for the active snapshot.

Edit and review this PR before merging it into the release snapshot. After Codeowner and Release Management approval, merging this PR creates the draft release.

Release contents

API	Version	Status	Comparison target
qos-booking-and-assignment	0.2.0-rc.1	rc	0.1.0
qos-booking	0.2.0-rc.1	rc	0.1.0

Dependencies: Commonalities r4.3, ICM r4.2

Codeowner Actions

Tick each box once done. Release Management review starts when all three boxes are ticked.

• Update the CHANGELOG

  What to do:

  • Copy all API-consumer-relevant changes from the provided list into the appropriate Breaking changes / Added / Changed / Fixed / Removed sections for each API. List breaking changes both in Breaking changes and in their normal change category.
  • Do not copy administrative, tooling-only, or internal maintenance changes unless they affect API consumers.
  • For each API, fill the CHANGELOG against the stated comparison target, following the release-type rules at the top of the CHANGELOG.

• Document deferred validation warnings (and hints)

  What to do:

  • Check the CAMARA Validation comment on this PR for warnings and hints.
  • For each warning you do not fix, document it in an issue: include a copy of the validation summary line(s) and the reason the fix is deferred.
  • Document in the same way any validation hint that is applicable to the API and needs to be fixed later.
  • You may group several findings into one issue or split them across issues — either is fine.
  • List the documenting issue(s) in a comment on this PR.
  • Note: documenting deferred warnings is optional but recommended for alpha pre-releases, and mandatory for rc pre-releases and public releases.

• The release is ready for Release Management review

  Check that:

  • All mandatory release assets for the declared status(es) are present (see the table below "Required release assets per API status" by expanding the arrow);
  • API documentation and test cases are adequate for the target status.

  Tick this box to confirm readiness and to start the Release Management review.

Release Management Actions

• CHANGELOG follows the release documentation rules
• Breaking changes are documented and version updates follow SemVer rules
• Mandatory release assets are present for each API according to its status
• All remaining validation warnings are documented in issues and the reasons for deferral are defensible

Required release assets per API status

Nr	Asset	alpha	rc	initial public	stable public
1	Release Plan	M	M	M	M
2	API Definition(s)	M	M	M	M
3	Commonalities compliance	O	M	M	M
4	API Documentation	M	M	M	M
5	User Stories	O	O	O	M
6	Test Cases (basic)	O	M	M	M
7	Test Cases (enhanced)	O	O	O	M
8	API Description	O	O	M	M

M = Mandatory, O = Optional — Full documentation

Valid next actions for codeowners

• Merge this PR when all Codeowner Actions and Release Management Actions are complete and the required approvals are present — creates the draft release
• Use /discard-snapshot <reason> in the Release Issue to discard this snapshot, return to planned, and update content on main

---

Snapshot: r2.1-8f1611a

[camara-validation]

CAMARA Validation — PASS (with warnings)

0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 hints | Profile: standard

View full results

Warnings MUST be documented in one or more issues before this release — see the Codeowner Actions in the PR description.

[tanjadegroot]

Hi team,
please see 2 comments here concerning Commonalities alignment

• #110
• #111

The QoS Booking APIs seem to be at a higher level of abstraction than QoD and Dedicated Networks which refer to some identified connectivity (session / network).
I fully adhere to the need to simplify and unify CQM concepts as discussed here

[hdamker]

I've re-run the Validation after the current tooling release. The change camaraproject/tooling#378 removed the false-positive "unused component" hints, but elevated the one genuine unused example to warning. Documented now in #112.

Beyond that I commented on #111 with some additional alignment potential and opened #113 regarding the different upper limits of duration within the APIs which are in addition are using a different approach than quality-on-demand. Please have a look and consider them beside the issues opened by @tanjadegroot.

[hdamker]

@Masa8106 @gmuratk After a closer look and comparison of the state models of the two APIs I have added #114. Not a blocker for this first release candidate, but I would expect at least a time plan for the alignment between the two APIs within the same repository. The current incompatibility does not make sense for API consumers from my perspective.

[Masa8106]

We have merged several PRs to resolve some comments here. So let me re-create a release review PR.