Hi all, Please see the proposed update of the flow, based on the comments received from Yoav and from Chris:
1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases 2. Use case subcommittee produces use case flow diagrams, provides its view on the foreseen modules introductions/modifications and suggests potential PNFs / VNFs 3. Use case subcommittee gets feedback from the potentially effected projects including integration team on feasibility 4. Iterate back to 2. 5. TSC approves the use case 6. In case new modules or new API introduction is foreseen, architecture subcommittee defines the new/modified ONAP flows and the interfaces principles, based on the approved use cases 7. Projects define their extended functionality and their external APIs, following those principles. 8. Detailed per-component flows are defined and projects write their user stories / implement them; Integration team continuously works with Use case subcommittee to accompany the use case development, review epics/user stories, answer questions, etc. Use case subcommittee behaves as system engineers for the use case through test start date 9. Integration team defines the gating use case based on step 8 and finalizes the PNFs / VNFs selection, with the help of use case subcommittee, architecture subcommittee, PTLs of a different ONAP projects 10. TSC approves the gating use case 11. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get the gating use case tested, repaired, and verified, and the results are documented. Please let me know if it makes sense. Best regards, Alla Goldner Open Network Division Amdocs Technology -----Original Message----- From: Yoav Kluger Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:02 AM To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) <[email protected]>; Yunxia Chen <[email protected]> Cc: Alla Goldner <[email protected]>; Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: RE: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow Hi, As far as I recall from the first architecture subc. meeting, it is not responsible for defining APIs, although we did discuss the possibility that we would want to guide as to the --what-- should be conveyed in APIs. And this is for new APIs only. My understanding of phase 6 here, and we probably should clarify this, is that the architecture subc. Kick in only when there are new APIs, or new modules, that are required to support the use case. If there are then it is vital that the arch subc to address this in a timely manner to make sure further work post phase 6 can progress. Also, I think what was said for the use case subc is true for the arch subc: as user stories are written, deeper understanding is reached as to what is required, and what was not apparent at an earlier stage may become apparent at a later stage - requiring attendance of the arch subc not seen earlier. I would not propose to also change this in our phases definition here, but I would assume when the arch subc articulates its phases it may want to clarify that. Having said that, in the vCPE use case I don't think we have any such new elements. So with the above proposed modifications we can say we are in phase 7. Thanks, Yoav Kluger Amdocs Technology +1(201)912-7294 +972-54-4850278 -----Original Message----- From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 3:33 PM To: Yunxia Chen <[email protected]> Cc: Alla Goldner <[email protected]>; Yoav Kluger <[email protected]>; Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow OK. So are we following this for release 1.? If yes we completed step 5 ( I guess we are official still voting on vCPE but we did get the majority number of votes already so it is bound to pass…). That would mean step 6. has to kick in. Is the architecture subcommittee willing to step up to this? As we need to have user stories for the projects by the end of the month the architecture subcommittee would have to close on this really this week so the projects can start on assessing the impact and writing user stories. Chris any comments? If we are following a different process for release one who is doing the work required in step 6.? Thx Oliver > On Jun 19, 2017, at 3:10 PM EDT, Yunxia Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Alla and Yoav to put it together. Since Integration team will make > automatic CI/CD far before the real release, I suggest that they get involved > asap: the more they understand the use case, the more they could develop the > testing cases. And most importantly they define the gating use case. > > I suggest to make some minor adjust on the flow: > > 1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases > 2. Use case subcommittee produces use case flow diagrams, ONAP > flow diagrams, and suggests potential PNFs / VNFs > 3. Use case subcommittee gets feedback from the potentially > effected projects including integration team on feasibility > 4. Iterate back to 2. > 5. TSC approval > 6. Architecture subcommittee defines the general new/modified > interfaces principles, based on approved use cases > 7. Projects define their extended functionality and their external > APIs, following those principles. > 8. Detailed per-component flows are defined and projects write their > user stories / implement them; Integration team will work with use case > subcommittee continues to accompany the use case development, review > epics/user stories, answer questions, etc. (behave as system engineers for > the use case) through test start date. > 9. Integration team will define the gating use case based on step 8; > and finalize the PNFs / VNFs selection, with the help of use case > subcommittee, architecture subcommittee, PTLs with ONAP projects > 10. TSC approval the gating use case. > 11. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get the gating > use case tested, repaired, and verified, and the results will be documented. > > Regards, > Helen Chen > > On 6/19/17, 11:39 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Alla > Goldner" <[email protected] on behalf of > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Yoav, Oliver, Steve, all, > > Firstly, I believe we need to distinguish R1 from any future release. The > methodology we build here would be good to work with in the future releases, > but not immediately. > For our immediate R1 work we need to quickly start interaction between > the use cases teams, the integration team and the projects, making sure all > these are aligned. > > For the longer term activities, I would say, following Yoav's description > below and the other received comments, we may consider the following split: > > 1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases > 2. Use case subcommittee produces use case flow diagrams and ONAP > flow diagrams > 3. Use case subcommittee gets feedback from the potentially > effected projects including integration team on feasibility > 4. Iterate back to 2. > 5. TSC approval > 6. Architecture subcommittee defines the general new/modified > interfaces principles, based on approved use cases > 7. Projects define their extended functionality and their > external APIs, following those principles. > 8. Detailed per-component flows are defined and projects write > their user stories / implement them; Use case subcommittee continues to > accompany the use case development, review epics/user stories, answer > questions, etc. (behave as system engineers for the use case) through test > start date > 9. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get the use > case tested, repaired, and verified > > Best regards, > > Alla Goldner > > Open Network Division > Amdocs Technology > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yoav Kluger > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 9:07 PM > To: Stephen Terrill <[email protected]>; SPATSCHECK, OLIVER > (OLIVER) <[email protected]>; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow > > Hi, > > The use case work involves two activities: > 1. Define the use case, in particular the specifics of the use > case which should be proven for a given release. > 2. Define ONAP delivery of the use case, i.e. ONAP flow diagrams > > Activity 1 requires domain expertise in the specific area of the use > case. As an example, in the vCPE case we needed to know the base spec if one > existed - in our case it was TR-317, and related technologies. Then we needed > to take use case architectural decisions based on a) what elements from the > spec we want to define as deliverables for R1; b) what modifications are > needed in various components of the use case; c) take lower level decisions > which the spec leaves undefined but which must be taken in order for the use > case to work and make sense to its customers. > > These expertise will typically reside in the use case subc. and not > necessarily in the integration project, whose main expertise will be in > integrating all ONAP pieces, producing the right lab environment, and verify > that ONAP does what it is supposed to do. Somewhere very close to test start > time you would expect the integration team to gain some expertise in the > specific use case - but this will be very close to the time it needs to be > tested and long after development of this use case in the various projects > has started. > > Since this is not about ONAP architecture but rather about the use case > architecture - these expertise would also not necessarily reside in the > architecture subc. > > Therefore the way I understand the flow is: > 1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases > 2. Use case subc produces use case flow diagrams and ONAP flow > diagrams > 3. Use case subcommittee gets feedback from the potentially > effected projects including integration team on feasibility > 4. Iterate back to 2. > 5. TSC approval > 6. Detailed per-component flows are defined and projects write > their user stories / implement them; Use case subc continues to accompany the > use case development, review epics/user stories, answer questions, etc. > (behave as system engineers for the use case) through test start date > 7. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get the use > case tested, repaired, and verified > > Thanks, > Yoav Kluger > Amdocs Technology > +1(201)912-7294 > +972-54-4850278 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 1:45 PM > To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow > > Hi, > > I wasn't in the use case subcommittee meeting today, so I was wondering > what is meant by "integration project leads (coordinates) effoerts to get > detailed flows ..." If these are information flows between the components, > then we have 3 places that would be doing such flows: UC subcommittee, > Architecture sub-commiteed, integration project. It seems like too many. > > Can we have the use-case sub-committee doing the high level flows for the > use case, only sufficient level to identify the requirements on the > components. The architecture group is having the flows to show the general > principles, then the APIs are done in the proejcts? > > BR, > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER > (OLIVER) > Sent: 19 June 2017 16:31 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [onap-discuss] Use Case Subcommittee Flow > > > Based on the discussion in the subcommittee meeting my understanding on > how use cases get worked from the beginning to the end is like follow: > > 1. Use case subcommittee discuses new use cases 2. Use case subcommittee > gets feedback from community including integration team on feasibility 3. > Iterate back to 1. > 4. TSC approval > 5. Integration project leads (coordinates) effort to get detailed flows > with the help of the other projects and the release manager 6. Detailed flows > are defined and projects write there user stories/implement them 7. > Integration team tests flows and use case > > Did I capture this correctly? Does that make sense to everybody? > > Thx > > Oliver > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and > confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, > > you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer > <https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer> > > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and > confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, > > you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer > <https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer> > > _______________________________________________ > onap-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss > This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement, you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer <https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer> _______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list [email protected] https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
