The “requestAdditionalCapabilities” was left in the spec for backward compatibility – for already existing VNF implementations, done prior to release of IFA011 2.3.1…
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 12:37 PM To: Vul, Alex <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 答复: RE: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and IFA011 Alex The "requestAdditionalCapabilities" are mainly keyvalue pairs in the IFA011. In R2, the HPA related KEYs should be as inputs and the key name or value structure should be discussed in the model. BR Maopeng 原始邮件 发件人：Vul,Alex <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 收件人：张茂鹏10030173; 抄送人：[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 日 期 ：2018年03月01日 19:23 主 题 ：RE: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and IFA011 Maopeng, Forgot to mention one more thing… Already existing VNFs, with already existing VNFDs that use alternative IFA011 HPA specification format, based on “requestAdditionalCapabilities” attribute, are not going to be impacted by this change… VNFs that are used as part of the VoLTE use cases don’t need to be converted to the new format, unless there a desire to do so… Same goes for already existing HEAT based VNFs… Kind regards, Alex Vul Intel Corporation From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 10:25 AM To: Vul, Alex <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: 答复: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and IFA011 Hi Alex As a model contributor, join the discussion. Could you give the specific HPA parameters and completed usecases in R2? Does the LAB need to provide some specific hardwares to test these features? If we model the HPA parameters and implemented in R2, I think some real implemented inputs are needed. Thanks Maopeng 原始邮件 发件人：Vul,Alex <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 收件人：yangxu (H) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>jessie jewitt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 日 期 ：2018年03月01日 16:48 主 题 ：Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and IFA011 _______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss Jessie, Xu There are a few things still missing from the agreed upon model. We need to add in items related to the HPA support. HPA is a functional requirement being implemented in R2. We need to ensure that the agreed upon model does not preclude the implementation of HPA. Thank you, Alex Vul Intel Corporation From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of yangxu (H) Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:29 AM To: jessie jewitt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [onap-discuss] 答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and IFA011 Hi Jessie, For the agreement, please look at https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Design+Time+Model+Clean+Version. The differences with IFA011 are shown in orange. As for “vnfProductName”, the agreement is to have the same name as IFA011 for the time being. Best regards, Xu 发件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 jessie jewitt 发送时间: 2018年2月28日 23:45 收件人: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 主题: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and IFA011 Hi- I'm trying to understand how the IM model proposed for R2 compares to IFA011. When I look on this wiki: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resource+IM+Discussion+Based+on+IFA011 it looks like the IFA011 model was reviewed and decisions were made. For example, in the VNFD, one decision was to rename vnfProductName to Name. It is marked as "AGREED". However, when I look at the R2 class VNFD, the attribute is still called "vnfProductName". Should I be ignoring the decisions made on the wiki above? Is there another place that shows the differences between the R2 classes and IFA011. Thanks for your help, Jessie
_______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
