Hi Alla / Usecase Subcommittee / All, Good Day!
Apologies for arriving late to R3 usecase party, but got some time ( finally !! ) to catch up with the happenings in this space and have got following queries. Would you / anyone in this list mind clarifying the same. Advance thanks. - *Casablanca platform enhancements to support 5G use-case* - refer https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/33063881/ 5GucCasablancaSummary-050918.pptx?version=1&modificationDate= 1526064064000&api=v2 <https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/33063881/5GucCasablancaSummary-050918.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1526064064000&api=v2> - As part of PNF PnP enhancement, it is stated that SO to be equipped with dedicated 5G workflow. Will this again be a BPMN based workflow or be based on TOSCA workflow ? - As part of Modelling enhancement , it is stated that model to be enriched to support 5G PNFs . Does this talks about ONAP Internal Data Model ( i.e how to describe a 5G VNF or 5G Network Service within ONAP) or external data model ( VNFDs and NSDs as per on-boarding ) or both ? - Also the descriptions of the enhancements are one-liners. Are there any other documents / Wiki page that contains more detailed functional requirements on each of those enhancement? Or is this still in WIP ? - As part of R3 deliverable, will there by any demonstration of 5G-ish service using these enhancements? If so, what are the corresponding VNFs / PNFs etc - *Change management use-case* - refer https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/33063881/ONAP_CM_Casablanca_Functional_Requirements_4June2018.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1528112859000&api=v2 - The "flexible workflow design & orchestration" targets only SDC, SO & VID. Does this means that, the workflow are not applicable to VF-C ? Will this be scoped for future release? - Would the "traffic migration building block" be "hard-coded" to only with specific community vnfs like vFW / vFW etc or be generic enough to apply on any VNF ? - Would the "software upgrade" portion will be specific to 5G PNFs alone, or can be applied for any generic PNF or VNF ? - *ONAP Edge orchestration use-case* - refer https://wiki.onap.org/rest/documentConversion/latest/conversion/thumbnail/33063880/1 - I understand this use-case could span across multiple ONAP releases, but its not clear as to whether there is any tangible deliverable from use-case, scoped for R3. Can I assume that, the MVP portion will be targeted for R3 ? - Will there be a demo-able component as part of R3 or just the functional architecture ? - *Consistent Representation of cloud region use-case* - refer https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/33063881/ConsistentRepresentationAndIdentificationOfCloudRegion.pptx?version=4&modificationDate=1526564521000&api=v2 - Suppose I have 2 VIMs / regions i.e say Orchestrator VIM ( where ONAP is deployed ) and Managed VIM ( where VNFs will be deployed by ONAP during orchestration ) . Could this current proposal tackle the distinction of these 2 VIMs ? BR, Viswa <http://www.verizon.com> Viswanath Kumar Skand Priya Architect Verizon India ( VDSI ) On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Christopher Donley (Chris) < [email protected]> wrote: > Agreed. This appears to be a significant change to the existing > architecture, and should be discussed with the wider community. Let me > know when you're ready, and I'll allocate a slot on the agenda. > > Chris > > From: <[email protected]> on behalf of Stephen Terrill < > [email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 10:14 AM > To: "VAN BRAKLE, TRACY L" <[email protected]>, Parviz Yegani < > [email protected]>, "Ranganathan, Raghu" <[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, > "TIMONEY, DAN" <[email protected]>, "SMITH JR., PAUL" <[email protected]>, " > [email protected]" <[email protected]>, > onap-tsc <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [Onap-usecasesub] [**EXTERNAL**] The summary of > Usecase subcommittee meeting 14/05/2017 - Casablanca use cases/functional > requirements endorsement > > Hi, > > > > The current practice we have is that these are taken in the Tuesday > Architecture meetings as is done with other use cases with architecture > considerations. > > > > Chris? > > > > BR, > > > > Steve > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On > Behalf Of *VAN BRAKLE, TRACY L > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2018 12:15 PM > *To:* Parviz Yegani <[email protected]>; Ranganathan, Raghu < > [email protected]> > *Cc:* TIMONEY, DAN <[email protected]>; SMITH JR., PAUL <[email protected]>; > onap-tsc <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [onap-tsc] [Onap-usecasesub] [**EXTERNAL**] The summary of > Usecase subcommittee meeting 14/05/2017 - Casablanca use cases/functional > requirements endorsement > > > > Parviz, > > Raghu, > > > > Please join the weekly SDN-R call (see below) to discuss this topic. > > > > We can allow 15 or 20 minutes on the agenda for the call today, May 30th, > or for the call next week, June 6th - just let me know your preference. > > > > Thank you in advance, > > > > Tracy > > > > *Tracy Van Brakle <[email protected] <[email protected]>>* > > *AT&T Labs - Wireless Network Architecture and Design* > > *+1 732.420.3003 office* > > *+1 732.306.2387 cell* > > > > > > *[sdnr] team meeting (updated Apr. 3, 2018)* > > When > > Weekly from 9am to 10am on Wednesday from Wed Apr 4 to Wed Mar 13, 2019 > Pacific > Time > > Where > > https://zoom.us/j/502876187 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__zoom.us_j_502876187&d=DwQFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=7TfzZqNtM8rzzpoqgbTKTw&m=AHXO5YHRW_Gzfg7saO8FEW35tAJwGEXy3BnSeOEsA1E&s=z3Du9SfpzoCOGcpc-3C2At0v8ZB2iO0YQkVcZPhCfZA&e=> > (map > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.google.com_url-3Fq-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Fzoom.us-252Fj-252F502876187-26sa-3DD-26usd-3D2-26usg-3DAFQjCNGBy9wN4iPnChWbXF4om9L8rybi9A&d=DwMFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=7TfzZqNtM8rzzpoqgbTKTw&m=AHXO5YHRW_Gzfg7saO8FEW35tAJwGEXy3BnSeOEsA1E&s=IGK8tA7A0zQa4qBM1pNLcC3qERjT55I1_NHRjuQOFPw&e=> > ) > > Calendar > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:*[email protected] <onap-usecasesub-bounces@ > lists.onap.org> *On Behalf Of *Parviz Yegani > *Sent:* Wednesday, May 30, 2018 2:03 AM > *To:* Ranganathan, Raghu <[email protected]> > *Cc:* TIMONEY, DAN <[email protected]>; onap-tsc <[email protected]>; > Dhananjay Pavgi <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Onap-usecasesub] [**EXTERNAL**] [onap-tsc] The summary of > Usecase subcommittee meeting 14/05/2017 - Casablanca use cases/functional > requirements endorsement > > > > Hi Raghu, > > > > I think we need to have a call to discuss SDN-R and it’s relation to > SDN-C. I’ll be happy to send an invite for this. > > > > How about Thursday, 1:00PM Pacific? > > > > Regards, > > *Parviz* > > > > *-------* > > *PARVIZ YEGANI, PhD * > Chief SDN/NFV Architect > > CTO Office, Cloud Network Solutions > > > > *FutureWei Technologies, Inc.* > > 2330 Central Express Way > > Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA > > Phone: +1 (408) 330-4668 > > Mobile : +1 (408) 759-1973 > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > *From:* Ranganathan, Raghu [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 22, 2018 5:39 PM > *To:* Parviz Yegani <[email protected]> > *Cc:* TIMONEY, DAN <[email protected]>; Alla Goldner <[email protected]>; > Vladimir Yanover (vyanover) <[email protected]>; Dhananjay Pavgi < > [email protected]>; SHANKARANARAYANAN, N K < > [email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; onap-tsc <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [**EXTERNAL**] [Onap-usecasesub] [onap-tsc] The summary of > Usecase subcommittee meeting 14/05/2017 - Casablanca use cases/functional > requirements endorsement > > > > PY> DG config node in SDN-C is enhanced to enable 3rd party controllers > > > > I don’t think that is the right conclusion. Dan’s email had “a number of > new components to SDNC”. So, I think Dan is referring to additional > functions/apps in SDN-C (ODL). Depending on which set of functions/apps are > needed, the role of ODL instances changes, ie., vanilla L0-3 vs vanilla > L4-7 ….vs radio vs shortest-path-icecream-delivery vs….combinations, > etc.. Hence, not an external 3rd party controller. SDN-R is either another > controller in ONAP (if separation of work) or existing SDN-C/App-C (if just > another app). > > > > Maybe, ONAP architecture diagram needs to show ’SDN-C/type1, SDN-C/type2, > SDN-C/type3….etc.’….versus only 2 (SDN-C/APP-C). > > > > Of course, the ‘functions/apps’ enhancements would mostly be domain > specific yang models (service/network) and directed graph nodes to execute. > But could be others…. > > —Raghu > > > > [extraneous text deleted] > > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists. > onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Ddiscuss&d=DwICAg&c= > udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=9F3pNUkzjE- > 2v1eTClkRVakDRN8GH7Bm-wt1lWkxoUyyDORTqf5MxNO_GrMBs0gZ&m= > xLzZLbbbc8oMMvWLkcEZivwdbhcKz4j1SHeoeoJ7K7Y&s=_ > T2dbCckE2zr4kokJ9YMm53xLxmaGs0JrusAFM5Tsac&e= > >
_______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
