Hi Chuyi-
Yes, it's my fault for not having reviewed this model when it was
originally proposed. What I would like to see for Casablanca is that we at
least "fix" it by doing the following:
1. Use a "pared down" version of the Papyrus NSD model that corresponds to
what was agreed, so we can output it from there on "clean", using the
correct associated class diagram.
2. Create the correct classes, and references to other classes and
datatypes that are already in the model (i.e. ConnectivityType is in our
common model)
3. Suppress the references (and associations) that are not desired (meaning
there is no associated class in the model, i.e. Sapd, Vnffgd) You say they
haven't been discussed yet, so I'm curious how the model was approved for
R2? If you prefer to keep these references, then we need to include the
associated classes that are referenced in the model.
4. I'm still not seeing a reference to VnfExtCp. Who is referencing that
and where?
I can prepare a new discussion wiki with what I'm proposing for next
Monday's RM call. However, I would need an answer to #3 above. Do you want
to remove the references to classes that aren't in your model, or do you
want to add the classes that are referenced. It would not be a good thing
to reference them, without defining them, which is currently the case in
the model.
-Jessie
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Chuyi Guo <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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]>
> *收件人：*"yangxu (H)" <[email protected]>
> *抄 送: *"[email protected]" <[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]> 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]] *On
>> Behalf Of *Jessie Jewitt
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 7, 2018 3:09 AM
>> *To:* onap-discuss <[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 (#12017): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/12017
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]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
