Sorry for late response (I missed it somehow ☹). What I understand is that there is some re-architecture happening in R4. In R4, current policy models would be supported (backward compatibility). In future, they need to move to new policy design. Due to this, it is not good to add enhancements to existing policy models or add new policy models with older design in R4.
When policy team moves to new policy design, one needs to ensure to migrate the existing functionality. This requires policy model owners to migrate their functionality to new policy model. And that need to happen by R5. Is that right understanding? BTW, Libo continue to be the contact from Intel in policy project (mainly with respect to HPA). Thanks Srini From: DRAGOSH, PAMELA L (PAM) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 6:41 AM To: Addepalli, Srinivasa R <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Ying, Ruoyu <[email protected]>; Zhu, Libo <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Policy Model - New enhancements (Looking for Guidance) Srini, Using the current API implementation for Casablanca, the policy team is not advancing that software repo or doing any model work in that software repo. So if simply replacing the model isn’t going to work for HPA but rather requires having 2 separate versions, that I will not commit to this late past M1. Your request is actually one reason (amongst many) as to why the project team’s highest priority for Dublin is to focus on the re-build of the Policy Design environment, Policy Lifecycle API and policy distribution to PDP’s (inclusion of Apex). This is a huge amount of work and we have limited time and resources to apply to changing the software components released for Casablanca. Our preference is bug fix only for those software components. We were not planning to make any changes to HPA models since you or Alex did not respond to my inquiries regarding HPA for Dublin and resources. My suggestion is we meet and discuss whether we can fit HPA model in the new architecture that we are doing. The primary focus was Control Loops for Dublin. In El Alto was where we were planning to move the other models. So let’s talk and see if it is something that we can get done perhaps as a stretch goal or POC. Thanks, Pam From: "Addepalli, Srinivasa R" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 3:00 PM To: "DRAGOSH, PAMELA L (PAM)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Ying, Ruoyu" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Zhu, Libo" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Policy Model - New enhancements (Looking for Guidance) Hi Pam and Policy team, As part of HPA feature, there is a need for some enhancements in the HPA policy model in R4 (to add sub-feature called – Multi-choice support of HPA requirements). At the same time, it is required that older policy model continue to be supported (for reasons such as supporting older policies created and due to some conversion logic issues). BTW, Enhancements to policy models are simple. What is the guidance from policy team? Is there version support in policy models. If so, we could bump up minor part of the policy model and add logic to addresses new policy model vesion. But, at a quick look, I don’t see the versions in policy models. Wondering whether you had similar requirements elsewhere and how are those being addressed? Thanks Srini -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#15502): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/15502 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/29668233/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
