Hi, I wasn't in the use case subcommittee meeting today, so I was wondering what is meant by "integration project leads (coordinates) effoerts to get detailed flows ..." If these are information flows between the components, then we have 3 places that would be doing such flows: UC subcommittee, Architecture sub-commiteed, integration project. It seems like too many.
Can we have the use-case sub-committee doing the high level flows for the use case, only sufficient level to identify the requirements on the components. The architecture group is having the flows to show the general principles, then the APIs are done in the proejcts? BR, Steve -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) Sent: 19 June 2017 16:31 To: [email protected] Subject: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow Based on the discussion in the subcommittee meeting my understanding on how use cases get worked from the beginning to the end is like follow: 1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases 2. Use case subcommittee gets feedback from community including integration team on feasibility 3. Iterate back to 1. 4. TSC approval 5. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get detailed flows with the help of the other projects and the release manager 6. Detailed flows are defined and projects write there user stories/implement them 7. Integration team tests flows and use case Did I capture this correctly? Does that make sense to everybody? Thx Oliver _______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss _______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
