I think it is the first time in the ONAP to go through it. right?
More infomation about the HPA data model in the ONAP model discussion, which is
provided by Anatoly(ATT)。
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Hardware+Platform+Requirements
is it same?
BR
Maopeng
原始邮件
发件人：Vul,Alex <[email protected]>
收件人：张茂鹏10030173;
抄送人：[email protected] <[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>
日 期 ：2018年03月01日 19:59
主 题 ：RE: RE: RE: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM
classes and IFA011
Sure, we can go through it one more time…
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 12:54 PM
To: Vul, Alex <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: 答复: RE: RE: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2
proposed IM classes and IFA011
You can provide the discussion as input to the ONAP model.
Let's discuss how to model it in the ONAP.
Again we need the real input of HPA parameters definition, not only the
keyvalue pairs.
BR
Maopeng
原始邮件
发件人：Vul,Alex <[email protected]>
收件人：张茂鹏10030173;
抄送人：[email protected] <[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>
日 期 ：2018年03月01日 19:42
主 题 ：RE: RE: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM
classes and IFA011
They have been discussed… They have not been all added to the final draft…
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]>
收件人：张茂鹏10030173;
抄送人：[email protected] <[email protected]>[email protected]
<[email protected]>[email protected]
<[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]]
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 10:25 AM
To: Vul, Alex <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[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]>
收件人：yangxu (H) <[email protected]>jessie jewitt
<[email protected]>[email protected]
<[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]
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]] On Behalf Of yangxu (H)
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:29 AM
To: jessie jewitt <[email protected]>;
[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]] 代表 jessie jewitt
发送时间: 2018年2月28日 23:45
收件人: [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
