"For MSB: I agree this should be part of CCF. It could be used by DCAE and
OOM."
Huabing：
MSB and CCF are different and their scope are not overlapping.
From the project description of CCF, it will provide "a common set of reusable
code that can be used across multiple controllers", it seems like some kind of
"Framework" codes refers to a collection of libraries/classes with the common
goal of providing a scaffold on which to build controller.
Microservices Bus are from OPEN-O code base which provides key infrastructure
functionalities to support Microservice Architecture including service
registration/discovery, service gateway, service load balancer. It's a
pluggable architecture so it can plugin service provider options like AAF to
provide Authentication & Authorization for APIs. Microservices Platform also
provides a service portal and service requests logging, tracing and monitoring
mechanism, etc. MSB doesn't not provide "Framework" codes for building a
Microservice.
Besides, If we prefer to provide a common "framework" across ONAP projects to
build a Microservice, we could consider some open source Microservice
frameworks on the table, which provides underlying libraries to support quickly
Microservice development and included the mechanisms to handle cross-cutting
concerns such as External Configuration, Logging, Health checks, Metrics etc.
Here are some candidates:
Java
Spring Boot
Dropwizard
Python
Nameko
Flask
Go
Gizmo
Micro
Go kit
And one more thing, As the Microservice Infrastructure, MSB could be used
nearly all the ONAP components(Microservices), not only DCAE and OOM.
Thanks and Regards,
Huabing
Original Mail
Sender: ＜[email protected]＞
To: ＜[email protected]＞ ＜[email protected]＞
Date: 2017/05/17 04:05
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Thoughts on next steps.
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]＞ on behalf of "SPATSCHECK, OLIVER
(OLIVER)" ＜[email protected]＞
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 at 3:47 PM
To: onap-tsc ＜[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
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
ProjectPotential Scope OverlappAAI
APPCCommon Controller… , VF-CAuthentication…
CLAMPModelingCommon Controller …VF-C, App-C, SDN-C, ONAP Operations Manager,
Microservice Bus, DCAE, DMAAP, MultiVIM, Service OrchestrationDCAEHolmes,
Common Controller…, DMAAPDMAAPCommon Controller… , DCAE (mentions data
processing)DocumentationONAP UniversityExternal API FrameworkModeling, External
System Register, ONAP ExtensibilityExternal System RegisterExternal API
Framework, ONAP ExtensibilityHolmesDCAEICEVNF-SDKIntegrationONAP Operations
ManagerMicroservice BusCommon Controller …, ONAP Operations
ManagerModelingCLAMPMiulti VimCommon Controller…Network Function Change..ONAP
CLI
ONAP ExtensibilityONAP Operations Manager, External API Framework, External
System RegisterONAP UniversityDocumentationONAP Operations ManagerCommon
Controller… , Integration, Onap ExtensibilityONAP Usecase UI Project
Policy Driven VNF OrchestartionPolicy Framework, SNIROPolicy Framework…Policy
Driven VNF OrchestrationPortal Platform …
SDN-CCommon Controller…Service Design & CreationModeling Service
OrchestrationCommon Controller…SNIROPolicy Driven VNF OrchestrationVF-CCommon
Controller… , App-CVID
VNF-SDKICE
_______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
