For the areas in which I have contributions to consider, here are some clarifications.
First, the Common Controller Framework should have overlap as far as scope with a lot of projects. That is the point of that project, to find overlapping functionality, develop it in a single project, and reuse it among the other components. So I would not be concerned with any overlap between CCF and the other projects dealing with deployment, management, orchestration, etc. That is by design. For DCAE: we have recognized an overlap with Holmes, which in my view should be a sub-project of DCAE, but it does not appear that sub-projects were proposed this way. DMaaP does not have an overlap with DCAE. DCAE uses DMaaP, as do many other components, but the scopes are completely different. I believe the functionality in DMaaP for data processing does not exist today and it is not clear that it would be part of an open-source release of DMaaP or not anyway. For DMaaP: The CCF overlap is by design. It is our intention to provide a “Data Bus Controller” with responsibility for deploying and managing DMaaP data delivery components where they are needed and when they are needed. That functionality exists in DCAE today, but needs to be pulled out to be generally available across ONAP components. For MSB: I agree this should be part of CCF. It could be used by DCAE and OOM. — Christopher A. Rath Director Inventive Science – Intelligent Services and Platforms Research From: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of "SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 3:47 PM To: onap-tsc <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [onap-tsc] Thoughts on next steps. ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T *** Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. I just went through the proposals and noticed that quite a few of them have not clearly defined boundaries between them which makes me wonder if they overlap (see table below). From experience overlapping project definitions rarely lead to good outcomes (duplicate work gets done and people are very upset at the end…) so I think we should resolve this before approving the projects. When I built this table I focused on what’s written in the proposals. Now from discussions I think some of the perceived overlaps might just be a matter of cleaning up the writing. Others might actually be real. In either case I think we need to be clear and precise in the project description and can’t rely on various email exchanges for this. I also don’t claim that my table is complete. If you want I can put the table on the Wiki so people can add there perceived or real overlaps. I don’t know how you usually resolve those issues but I would think that the project leads for all projects which might have an overlap define a common statement which defines there relationship with each other in some level of detail. Thoughts? I also looked at the use cases. Lingli and her team did a great job cleaning up the VoLTE use case: https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3246140<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_pages_viewpage.action-3FpageId-3D3246140&d=DwMGaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=mSWkj6dIUv40CROVujozu_XlxP5keHDQDHDFr5pdK8c&m=1vCiffQlW45jG2jvHk7jIkWuy-A-H0iAdyYLQwP5aeg&s=6HyvFwD1dgzt-cvOGcGtY7E2YnvsWItIZDMv3gvgcSc&e=> The flow charts are a great start but we do need to get into more details and actually show the real API calls as well. I am also not sure I understand how exactly the legacy Open-O and legacy ECOMP components integrate. I think the next step here is to walk through this in detail. I don’t think that’s something that can be done efficiently via email. I would suggest a call on the topic. That might actually be better then a F2F in June as it allows more developers to dial in. One concern on this particular use case is that only Huawei and ZTE have any VNFs in it. Personally I don’t think it’s a good start for an open project to start with proprietary VNFs from mainly one manufacturer with some contribution from a second. I wouldn’t even know how that worked in practice. E.g. will those VNFs be available to competing vendors so they can test/develop ONAP code? This brings me to overall use case scope and reality. Using Gilda’s release plan (all his fault after all :)) we have to work all of this out by 6/29 (sounds a lot of time but really isn’t). Development is only 3 months till RC0. We have 32 projects. That’s 21 projects more then the seed code of 8+3. If I ignore the toy use case we have two use cases proposed with the VoLTE one having more details then the other. Coordinating interfaces one on one for the 32 projects requires 512 meetings. …. I think if we are trying to achieve all of this in release 1 we are setting ourselves up for failure. If it was up to me I would probably just focus the use cases on instantiation and one simple control loop. This might seem like very little but considering the work we need to start the projects, set up the labs, get developers familiar with the environment, get them lab access etc… which all takes time. I think that would be realistic for a first release and then we can adjust the second release accordingly. In terms of projects I would be very careful which projects have deliverables in release 1.0. . I don’t think having deliverable in release 1.0 is a gating function of getting a project approved. So the TSC can approve projects that make sense but as said I would discourage some of them to have a contribution to the 1.0 release. Probably just stating the obvious … . Oliver Project Potential Scope Overlapp AAI APPC Common Controller… , VF-C Authentication… CLAMP Modeling Common Controller … VF-C, App-C, SDN-C, ONAP Operations Manager, Microservice Bus, DCAE, DMAAP, MultiVIM, Service Orchestration DCAE Holmes, Common Controller…, DMAAP DMAAP Common Controller… , DCAE (mentions data processing) Documentation ONAP University External API Framework Modeling, External System Register, ONAP Extensibility External System Register External API Framework, ONAP Extensibility Holmes DCAE ICE VNF-SDK Integration ONAP Operations Manager Microservice Bus Common Controller …, ONAP Operations Manager Modeling CLAMP Miulti Vim Common Controller… Network Function Change.. ONAP CLI ONAP Extensibility ONAP Operations Manager, External API Framework, External System Register ONAP University Documentation ONAP Operations Manager Common Controller… , Integration, Onap Extensibility ONAP Usecase UI Project Policy Driven VNF Orchestartion Policy Framework, SNIRO Policy Framework… Policy Driven VNF Orchestration Portal Platform … SDN-C Common Controller… Service Design & Creation Modeling Service Orchestration Common Controller… SNIRO Policy Driven VNF Orchestration VF-C Common Controller… , App-C VID VNF-SDK ICE
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
