Hi Yoav, Oliver, Steve, all, Firstly, I believe we need to distinguish R1 from any future release. The methodology we build here would be good to work with in the future releases, but not immediately. For our immediate R1 work we need to quickly start interaction between the use cases teams, the integration team and the projects, making sure all these are aligned.
For the longer term activities, I would say, following Yoav's description below and the other received comments, we may consider the following split: 1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases 2. Use case subcommittee produces use case flow diagrams and ONAP flow diagrams 3. Use case subcommittee gets feedback from the potentially effected projects including integration team on feasibility 4. Iterate back to 2. 5. TSC approval 6. Architecture subcommittee defines the general new/modified interfaces principles, based on approved use cases 7. Projects define their extended functionality and their external APIs, following those principles. 8. Detailed per-component flows are defined and projects write their user stories / implement them; Use case subcommittee continues to accompany the use case development, review epics/user stories, answer questions, etc. (behave as system engineers for the use case) through test start date 9. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get the use case tested, repaired, and verified Best regards, Alla Goldner Open Network Division Amdocs Technology -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yoav Kluger Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:07 PM To: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>; SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow Hi, The use case work involves two activities: 1. Define the use case, in particular the specifics of the use case which should be proven for a given release. 2. Define ONAP delivery of the use case, i.e. ONAP flow diagrams Activity 1 requires domain expertise in the specific area of the use case. As an example, in the vCPE case we needed to know the base spec if one existed - in our case it was TR-317, and related technologies. Then we needed to take use case architectural decisions based on a) what elements from the spec we want to define as deliverables for R1; b) what modifications are needed in various components of the use case; c) take lower level decisions which the spec leaves undefined but which must be taken in order for the use case to work and make sense to its customers. These expertise will typically reside in the use case subc. and not necessarily in the integration project, whose main expertise will be in integrating all ONAP pieces, producing the right lab environment, and verify that ONAP does what it is supposed to do. Somewhere very close to test start time you would expect the integration team to gain some expertise in the specific use case - but this will be very close to the time it needs to be tested and long after development of this use case in the various projects has started. Since this is not about ONAP architecture but rather about the use case architecture - these expertise would also not necessarily reside in the architecture subc. Therefore the way I understand the flow is: 1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases 2. Use case subc produces use case flow diagrams and ONAP flow diagrams 3. Use case subcommittee gets feedback from the potentially effected projects including integration team on feasibility 4. Iterate back to 2. 5. TSC approval 6. Detailed per-component flows are defined and projects write their user stories / implement them; Use case subc continues to accompany the use case development, review epics/user stories, answer questions, etc. (behave as system engineers for the use case) through test start date 7. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get the use case tested, repaired, and verified Thanks, Yoav Kluger Amdocs Technology +1(201)912-7294 +972-54-4850278 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:45 PM To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow 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 This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer <https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer> _______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer <https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer> _______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
