Hi Jessie, On bullet 2, I mean I don’t see an attribute which is using the datatype in the diagram, not sure if it’s omitted because I noticed it in the tables below.
BR, Xu From: jessie jewitt [mailto:jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2018 12:41 AM To: onap-discuss <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>; yangxu (H) <yang...@huawei.com> Cc: 郭楚怡 <guoch...@chinamobile.com>; denglingli <denglin...@chinamobile.com>; zhang.maopeng1 <zhang.maope...@zte.com.cn>; zhan.jie1 <zhan.j...@zte.com.cn> Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Network Service Descriptor model Hi Xu- Two comments: 1. I will mark association member ends and referenced classes as experimental and put them in the output. 2. You don't see things like ConnectivityType on the diagram because it is a class diagram and ConnectivityType is a datatype. -Jessie On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 7:31 PM, Xu Yang <yang...@huawei.com<mailto:yang...@huawei.com>> wrote: Hi Jessie, Please see inline. Best regards, Xu From: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org> [mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>] On Behalf Of Jessie Jewitt Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 1:44 AM To: yangxu (H) <yang...@huawei.com<mailto:yang...@huawei.com>> Cc: 郭楚怡 <guoch...@chinamobile.com<mailto:guoch...@chinamobile.com>>; onap-discuss <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>; denglingli <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>>; zhang.maopeng1 <zhang.maope...@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhang.maope...@zte.com.cn>>; zhan.jie1 <zhan.j...@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhan.j...@zte.com.cn>> Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Network Service Descriptor model Hi Xu- I hadn't seen your response when I answered Chuyi's email. Please see my comments embedded below... Thanks, Jessie On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 12:50 AM, yangxu (H) <yang...@huawei.com<mailto:yang...@huawei.com>> wrote: 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. Jessie: Yes, agree 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. Jessie: Agree. That's what I proposed to Chuyi. I'll align the current NSD model in Papyrus with the R2 model, but fix the issues and prepare this to go in clean. I can have it ready by next Monday, hopefully, though I won't be on the call. 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. Jessie: Agree. 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. Jessie: The "attributes" that are not defined are member ends of associations. We need to either remove the associations, or add the referenced classes in the model. I personally don't think it would be correct to mark them as "experimental" as they would be incomplete definitions. For example, you reference a Sapd, but don't define the Sapd class? It wouldn't be possible to implement something like that. [xy] I agree, I’m suggesting either we remove those attributes/associations or add the referenced classes and mark those classes as “experimental”. For example, either we don’t have any attributes/classes called Sapd in the model, or we add an empty Sapd class marked as “experimental”. The reason why I’m suggesting to mark the class as “experimental” is that we don’t have a discussion on those classes before (and not likely to have before the deadline), marking them as “experimental” shows further discussion and refinement are needed. 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. Jessie: I didn't catch what was on the wiki, but not in the model. Can you remind me what that is? [xy] For example, I think several attributes (testAccess, connectivityType, etc.) of the NsVirtualLinkDesc class are not shown in the diagram. Best regards, Xu From: 郭楚怡 [mailto:guoch...@chinamobile.com<mailto:guoch...@chinamobile.com>] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 1:38 PM To: jessie.jewitt <jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com<mailto:jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com>> Cc: onap-discuss <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>; yangxu (H) <yang...@huawei.com<mailto:yang...@huawei.com>>; denglingli <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>>; zhang.maopeng1 <zhang.maope...@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhang.maope...@zte.com.cn>>; zhan.jie1 <zhan.j...@zte.com.cn<mailto:zhan.j...@zte.com.cn>> 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 <jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com<mailto:jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com>> 收件人："yangxu (H)" <yang...@huawei.com<mailto:yang...@huawei.com>> 抄 送: "onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>" <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>> 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) <yang...@huawei.com<mailto:yang...@huawei.com>> 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: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org> [mailto: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<mailto: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 (#12048): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/12048 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
