HI Alex, Your inputs about HPA are clear. With analysis ongoing I meant we have already spoken and understood the requirements in different meetings (modelling subcommittee or TOSCA DM specific meetings) and they are part of the versions under finalization.
In the previous email, my intention was to highlight the needs for the other requirements. It could be good have some inputs, as you kindly provided, and ensure they can be part of the IM and TOSCA DM under discussion for R2. If it is the case, it is enough to have evidence that there is no expected additional need. At the beginning of R2 modelling subcommittee activities, we (as modelling committee) proposed some M2/M3/M4 checklist. Even if it is too early to use them for Beijing Release, it could be good think about some modelling checks even in R2. BR Michela From: Vul, Alex [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: den 21 februari 2018 08:50 To: Michela Bevilacqua <[email protected]>; denghui (L) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] [modeling] Beijing Release new functional requirements Hi Michela, Regarding HPA in particular.... This is a functional requirement at cuts across multiple use cases in support hardware optimized VNFs. HPA has been part of the IFA model starting with v2.3.1 of the IFA specification. I have integrated the HPA related changes from the IFA IM into the latest stable version of the OASIS TOSCA NFV Profile. I have also done the same with the SOL001 specification that we will be working on in Nice next week. I guess I am not sure what you mean by "analysis on-going" with respect to this item, given that it's slated for initial delivery into R2. Observe that the ONAP information model that we have been working on reflects the HPA changes based on the ETSI IFA specification as well. Alex Vul Intel Corporation From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michela Bevilacqua Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2018 8:12 PM To: denghui (L) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> P <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [modeling] Beijing Release new functional requirements Hi, In the context of Beijing release, it could be good to have some more inputs about possible ONAP IM and ONAP TOSCA DM impacts/expectations in relation to the new functional requirements: 1. HPA: discussions progressed, analysis is ongoing 2. Change Management: no input 3. Scaling: no input 4. PNF: no input Can we add this point in agenda for the next modeling subcommittee meeting and ensure inputs from use case committee or from different reference functional requirement area ? BR Michela From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of denghui (L) Sent: den 14 februari 2018 04:46 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> P <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [onap-tsc] [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 [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
