Dear Alex

You misunderstand “later” , it doesn’t mean R3, but means later next week.
The slide is final output among us, no word changes.

DENG Hui

From: Vul, Alex [mailto:alex....@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 9:04 PM
To: denghui (L); Gadiyar, Rajesh; Addepalli, Srinivasa R; 
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; onap-...@lists.onap.org
Cc: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E); Katzman, Anatoly; SHADMI, DAVID
Subject: URGENT - Modeling Subcommittee meeting minutes from March 6th 
meeting...

Dear Deng Hui,

The meeting minutes appear to be incorrect…


Item 4) under the 1) DM incorrectly states that…

4) will work on improve R3 modeling spec before end of Beijing release

Extra addition related to IM+(including HPA) will be added later

As I understand it, the above statement alleges that we agreed to postpone the 
HPA modeling extensions until R3. Is this correct?

I am afraid we never agreed to postpone the implementation of HPA until after 
R2. In fact, if I remember correctly, when asked if anyone had any objections 
to implementing HPA in R2, no one on the call raised any objections. Having 
talked to Anatoly, my understanding is that he never agreed to exclude the HPA 
model extensions from R2 either.

Once again, HPA is an agreed upon functional requirement to be implemented in 
ONAP R2. HPA has gone through the public review. HPA information and data model 
extensions need to be considered as part of R2

The HPA modeling extensions are based on the same industry standard information 
model as ONAP IM R2+  �C ETSI IFA011 v2.4.1. The HPA modeling extensions can 
added to either the NFV profile based data model or a ETSI SOL001 based data 
model.

If the community decision is to use the NFV Profile based data model so be it. 
We will add the HPA related data types, node types and attributes to what 
Victor uploaded on the Wiki, under the NFV Profile model and move on. The 
implementation of HPA in R2 is on-going…

In the future, I would suggest that we record the Modeling Subcommittee 
meetings. This way we can avoid any misunderstandings like this from happening…

Kind regards,

Alex Vul
Intel Corporation
20180306 Meeting agenda and Minutes

1) DM:                     Anatoly Katzman

●Victor’s proposal will be agreed �C TOSCA NFV profile plus R2 IM+

https://<https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Data+Model+align+with+TOSCA+NFV+Profile>wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Data+Model+align+with+TOSCA+NFV+Profile<https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Data+Model+align+with+TOSCA+NFV+Profile>

Note: need to confirm whether onboarding has any issue, if fail then need to 
fall back to R1 solution.

1) will keep onap type and heat type both folders, and

2) will update onap type with TOSCA NFV profile, and

3) will best effort to let 2 use cases use it, if fail, and will fall back to 
heat type , and

4) will work on improve R3 modeling spec before end of Beijing release

Extra addition related to IM+(including HPA) will be added later

2)Resource IM:        Xu Yang
3)Service IM/DM:    Lingli Deng & Maopeng (Wednesday call)
4)Modeling workshop in ONS 2017

5) If time allows:

  Modeling spec Papyrus:  Jessie Jewitt

  Modeling tools:               Nigel Davis

  Parser:                              Atul Purohit

  A&AI                                James Forsyth

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

Reply via email to