All,

A small correction to meeting minutes...

The minutes incorrectly attribute the "monolithic VDU design" to the current 
ONAP modeling proposal being led by AT&T. In fact, it is a "feature" of the 
ETSI NFV IFA information model that has been around for quite some time.

To date, all three data model proposals - ETSI NFV SOL001, TOSCA NFV Profile 
and the ONAP DM proposal - have inherited the "monolithic VDU design" from the 
ETSI NFV IFA011 spec.

In fact the ONAP DM proposal, being led by AT&T, attempts to remedy the 
monolithic VDU problem, by suggesting that we split the VDU into two parts - 
the software payload and the software payload "container" that can be realized 
during service instantiation using physical servers, VMs, K8S pods, etc...

If I remember right, a similar approach was suggested by the OSM community 
about a year and a half ago. However, their proposal was derailed due to 
concerns around the impact on already existing VNF products being modeled using 
monolithic VDU's.

That's all,

Alex Vul
Intel Corporation



From: onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of denghui (L)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:46 PM
To: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; onap-...@lists.onap.org P 
<onap-...@lists.onap.org>
Subject: [onap-discuss] [modeling] 20180213 modeling subcommittee Meeting 
Minutes

Hello all

Modeling subcommittee has been questioned when will our modeling DM spec come 
out, below are our meeting minutes this week.

Hi Kenny, We are going to cancel next week modeling subcommittee call due to 
china new year, thanks a lot for your help

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20180213 modeling subcommittee Meeting agenda and Minutes
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Modeling+sub-committee+meetings

1)  Resource IM YANG Xu
there is no consensus whether we need to follow ETSI NFV naming convention or 
change into ONAP naming.
Two polls will be set to decide the naming convention and future meeting time. 
The polls close on Feb 28th.
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Meeting+Time+Poll
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Naming+Convention+Poll

2)  Data modeling Anatoly Katzman
DENG Hui: modeling subcommittee have to finalize the 1st draft version by M3 
deadline, in this case, we need to allow solutions only 1 week, and make the 
decision on Feb. 28th.
DENG Hui: there are two solutions on the table now: Monolithic VDU design and 
TOSCA NFV profile, we are not make decision today, but would get basic impress 
what company would like to follow:
Vendors:
1) Ericsson  vote for  of ETSI NFV Profile
2) ZTE   vote for  ETSI SOL NFV profile
3) Huawei vote for  ETSI NFV profile
4) Nokia --no one on call
5) Netcracker (Priya TG) vote for ETSI NFV Profile
Operators:
1) AT&T: Monolithic VDU
2) China Mobile: lacking information to do an informed comparison hence no 
strong opinion to any specific proposal currently. The options on the table 
should firstly meet the requirement as a unified DM in the community with 
consistency to the IM and implementable in Beijing release cadence with vendors 
support. It would be better if we could align with SDO in the same time.
Next step:
a) check whether we have 3rd solution or not in a week
b) make decision on Feb.27th

3) Modeling tool poll(Jessie)
1) use github for papyrus revision
fine from IM's team (Kevin, Andy, Lingli, and YANG Xu)
Anyway, polling will end by the end of Feb.

Best regards,

DENG Hui
_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss

Reply via email to