Hi Jessie, In R2, we did have a call for approval for the NSD model, as shown in https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/8829. Let’s not argue on that anymore and focus on improving the current model.
It’s true that we don’t have a UML diagram for the NSD model on the wiki page I give, the proposal from my side is that we create a Papyrus model for the NSD (as we are doing it now) and align it with the R2 wiki page, fix issues and put it into R3 clean model. Further improvement and alignment with ETSI specs are better to be put into R4 as we are coming to the deadline for the final draft. Regarding the issues, I think you are right the current model is not complete, we can either remove those attributes that are not defined or mark them as experimental like what we have done for the VNFD model. And as Chuyi pointed out, there’s something on the wiki that are not shown in the Papyrus model, update is needed to keep them aligned. Best regards, Xu From: 郭楚怡 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:38 PM To: jessie.jewitt <[email protected]> Cc: onap-discuss <[email protected]>; yangxu (H) <[email protected]>; denglingli <[email protected]>; zhang.maopeng1 <[email protected]>; zhan.jie1 <[email protected]> Subject: Re:Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Network Service Descriptor model Hello, Jessie, The Network Service model corresponds to the link is not only NSD, it includes different classes, and has been discussed and voted in Service IM call, I'm sorry you didn't catch the call. The current NS model is coordinated with the requirements of VF-C, not simply copy the ETSI specifications. Since the scope of development plan for C-release has been settled, other specific requirements should be proposed and discussed in the later releases. As for the issues you mentioned, I think you are right about the NsVirtualLink, the type of VirtualLinkDesc is NsVirtualLinkDesc. For 4 and 5, the details of Sapd, Vnffgd and etc., haven't been discussed yet, so is for VnfExtCp. From my understanding, ConnectivityType should be in the NsVirtualLinkDesc, which hasn't been put in the papyrus class diagram , I think it is the point where should update. BR, Chuyi. ----邮件原文---- 发件人：Jessie Jewitt <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 收件人："yangxu (H)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 抄 送: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 发送时间：2018-08-21 00:41:12 主题：Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Network Service Descriptor model Hi Xu- The link you refer to in your email to Network Service (which I assume is Descriptor) is not a model that is acceptable to me. I certainly don't remember voting on this in R2. Here are some of the reasons I personally cannot accept it: 1. There is no class diagram showing the relationships between entities, so I don't really know what concepts you are trying to model. 2. The relationship that should exist is between NSD and VirtualLinkDesc, and not NsVirtualLink. The attribute in NSD called virtualLinkDesc (which should be the endpoint of the association) is of type string. That is incorrect. 3. I believe you mean NsVirtualLink to VirtualLinkDesc, as the first attribute is virtualLinkDescId. 4. Many of the attributes in NSD refer to types that are not defined in the model (Sapd, Vnffgd, NsDf...) 5. Same comment above regarding NsVirtualLink. It contains types that are not in your model, like SecurityParameters 6. ConnectivityType, as a datatype, has been moved to our Common model, which we will need to define as part of our final resource IM in clean, and not a NSD model. The benefit of putting datatypes like these in "Common" is that we define them once, and then reference them from multiple models, like Resource (where NSD lives) and VNF. 7. There is nothing in the model that refers to a VnfExtCp and its relationship to NSD. These are just some of the issues. I believe a better approach is to take the NSD model defined that is based on ETSI (that addresses the above issues) and pare it down to something equivalent, if you want. I'd be happy to update the NSD model to show what it would look like. -Jessie On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:35 AM, yangxu (H) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Jessie Jewitt Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 3:09 AM To: onap-discuss <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 (#11996): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/11996 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/24212025/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
