Hi All, Thank you for joining today’s resource IM call and having the meaningful discussion. My apologize for not allocating much time reviewing the NSD model, as M3 is approaching, I think we need to trigger offline discussion to help accelerate the progress.
The main issue I see for the NSD model is the scope for R3 documentation. The current proposal from Jessie is based on IFA014 spec, while the model agreed in R2 (https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/NetworkService) is only subset of the spec. And whether we need to include PNFD model as part of the NSD model (like ETSI does), and how we document the PNFD model in R3 remains a question. My suggestion is we keep aligned with the previous agreement and implementation in R3. Which means we only document the trimmed NSD in R3 and try to capture the PNFD model which would be implemented by the SDC team. Please share your opinions on this issue and let’s try to finalize the clean model before the deadline, thanks. Best regards, Xu From: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Jessie Jewitt Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 3:09 AM To: onap-discuss <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org> Subject: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Network Service Descriptor model Please review and provide comments by 8/13 (on the wiki) for the proposed Network Service Descriptor<https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Proposed+Network+Service+Descriptor+Model> model. It was aligned with ETSI IFA014 v2.4.4. Thanks, Jessie -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#11949): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/11949 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/24212025/21656 Group Owner: onap-discuss+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
