Hi Deng,
That's very helpful, I appreciate it.
Huabing,
Original Mail
Sender: <[email protected]>
To: zhaohuabing10201488 <[email protected]>
CC: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>FuGuangRong10144542
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: 2017/07/19 17:00
Subject: RE: Re:RE: Solicit PTL feedback for ONAP RESTful API
DesignSpecification//Fw:[onap-tsc][ptls] proposed topic for the next week's
PTLmeeting
Hi Huabing
I have sent a separate email cc to ZTE ETSI representative, she could help you
to download those files.
Thanks a lot
DENG Hui
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 4:48 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Kanagaraj Manickam
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] Yunxia Chen [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
denghui (L) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] Gildas Lanilis [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Seshu m
[email protected]
Subject: Re:RE: Solicit PTL feedback for ONAP RESTful API Design
Specification//Fw:[onap-tsc][ptls] proposed topic for the next week's PTL
meeting
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the SOL draft, But I think we definitely
should avoid potential misalignment with ETSI. If anyone who involved in ETSI
SOL could help review this, I will very appreciate it.
The ONAP RESTful API Design Specification can start with some fundamental
principles like the URI construct and versioning and it's open for discussion
and will evolve along with ONAP development, if there is anything is not
consistent with ETSI SOL, we should change it.
Below is the response specificly regrading your comments
E.g. this proposes hyphons “-“ where ETSI propose underscore “_”
Huabing: My personal opinion is that “-” may be more reasonable, I would be
great if we know the reasoning behind ETSI SOL, However, to avoid potential
misalignment with ETSI, I marked this item as TBD.
For security reasons, should we use HTTPS instead of HTTP.
Huabing: I added this item to the specification.
Also, on the theme of the token, we would probably needs some explanation
around the handling of the token – i.e. who generates it, how is it validated
etc.
Huabing: this item is a general rule rather than implementation description.
The token should be generated and validated by ONAP auth component such as AAF.
In versioning, is the compatibility for minor revisions only? (i.e. major
revisions may not be or?)
Huabing: It's covered.
· Major version: The version used in the URI and denotes breaking
changes to the API. Internally, a new major version implies creating a new API
and the version number is used to route to the correct implementation.
· Minor and Patch versions: These are transparent to the client and
used internally for backward-compatible updates. They should be reflected in
the swagger files to inform clients about a new functionality or a bug fix.
Regarding versioning, we should describe the behavior regarding version
negotiation/discovery, i.e. if the client supports x.1.2 and the server
supports x.1.1 should the client fallback to x.1.1 or is it assumed that the
server politely ignores what it doesn’t understand.
Huabing: It's covered as as start point, it's an important capability but we
may not have time to implement it at Amsterdam release.
· Version discovery (Optional)
Need to be discussed: Should ONAP adopt a version discovery mechanism like
OpenStack? :https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/VersionDiscovery
What is the recommendation if the “verb” cannot be mapped granularly enough to
Post/get/put/delete? (e.g. “tell bailey to come” “tell bailey to sit” “Clean
bailey”, “tell bailey to bark”, … etc.
Huabing: It's not covered now, it's a start point and can evolve along with
ONAP development.
Thanks,
Huabing
Original Mail
Sender: <[email protected]>
To: zhaohuabing10201488 <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>FuGuangRong10144542 <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Date: 2017/07/19 01:39
Subject: RE: Solicit PTL feedback for ONAP RESTful API Design
Specification//Fw:[onap-tsc][ptls] proposed topic for the next week's PTL
meeting
Hi Huabing,
Thank-you for bringing this topic up for discussion and proposal.
I have some input for you to consider:
· It has been brought to my attention that similar needs have also
being raised in other communities, and one such being the ETSI specifications
where this has been documented in NFVSOL 00050. It could make sense to avoid
unnecessary misalignment where possible
(https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/SOL/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2017/NFVSOL(17)000050r3_SOL_REST_API_convention_collection_living_document.zip
(if you have access to ETSI, or hopefully it can be made open), also some
patterns are described in SOL3 which are not represented in the conventions
document yet
(https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/SOL/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2017/NFVSOL(17)000050r3_SOL_REST_API_convention_collection_living_document.zip
·
https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/Open/Drafts/SOL003_Or-Vnfm_protocols/NFV-SOL003v0100.zip
)
§ E.g. this proposes hyphons “-“ where ETSI propose underscore “_”
§ Others ..
§ (Perhaps there could be help from the stds coordinator appointed for
ETSI-NFV to help you here???)
· For security reasons, should we use HTTPS instead of HTTP.
· Also, on the theme of the token, we would probably needs some
explanation around the handling of the token – i.e. who generates it, how is it
validated etc.
· In versioning, is the compatibility for minor revisions only? (i.e.
major revisions may not be or?)
· Regarding versioning, we should describe the behavior regarding
version negotiation/discovery, i.e. if the client supports x.1.2 and the server
supports x.1.1 should the client fallback to x.1.1 or is it assumed that the
server politely ignores what it doesn’t understand.
· What is the recommendation if the “verb” cannot be mapped granularly
enough to Post/get/put/delete? (e.g. “tell bailey to come” “tell bailey to
sit” “Clean bailey”, “tell bailey to bark”, … etc.
BR,
Steve
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 11 July 2017 05:10
To: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Stephen Terrill <[email protected]> [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Solicit PTL feedback for ONAP RESTful API Design Specification
//Fw:[onap-tsc][ptls] proposed topic for the next week's PTL meeting
Hi Gregory and PTLs,
At the this week's PTL meeting, I get the action item to contact documentation
team and PTLs to continues the RESTFul API Design discussion.
http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/onap-meeting/2017/onap-meeting.2017-07-10-13.22.html
The reasoning behind this:
API is very important because it's hard to make significant changes to your API
once it's released, so we want to get as much right as possible at first.
Currently, most of the projects have already passed their M1 review, the
Release Planning. And developers start to write codes.I went through some of
the existing API documents of a bunch of projects, it seems that there's no
consistent way for Restful API design and some of the API definition are not
very appropriate.
Because it's a cross-project issue, I proposed this topic at this week's PTL
meeting, I'd like to suggest that we figure out a unified approach across ONAP
projects for the Restful API design before we jump into the coding work.
I came up with a draft as the start point for discussion on this wiki page:
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/RESTful+API+Design+Specification+for+ONAP
.These items in this pages are based on some best practices in the industry,
such as the URL, resource hierarchy, the versioning, the use of HTTP method,
API documentation Specification, etc.
Please discuss the specification within your team. If anything needs to be
modified or added, just send feedback here by mail or comment on the wiki page.
I hope we could get a revised and improved version ready for next week's PTL
meeting.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Huabing
Original Mail
Sender: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>zhaohuabing10201488 <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>FuGuangRong10144542 <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
CC: <[email protected]>
Date: 2017/07/07 15:02
Subject: [onap-tsc][ptls] proposed topic for the next week's PTL meeting
Dear PTLs,
Maybe we could discuss this topic at the next week's PTL meeting. It's
important and covers almost all the projects which will produce APIs.
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/RESTful+API+Design+Specification+for+ONAP
Thanks,
Huabing
---------- Forwarded message ---------
Cc: <[email protected]>
Hi Pam,
After taking a look at the other best practices on this page. I realized that
this is more like a specification than best practices because we'd like to
enforce them to all the ONAP components. I moved this page to
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/RESTful+API+Design+Specification+for+ONAP
Agree that some of the projects may not redesign the existing API for
back-compatible reason, We can maintain the old version while designing the new
version in parallel. It's possible that both the old and new version can be
provided to the ONAP clients.
Thanks,
Huabing
Original Mail
Sender: <[email protected]>
To: zhaohuabing10201488 <[email protected]>
Date: 2017/06/22 20:09
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] RESTful API Design Best Practices for
ONAPMicroservices
Huabing,
Thanks, I agree and feel this is very valuable. There is no formal best
practices for RESTful API, albeit a few websites that do a fairly good job at
making suggestions.
I think this detailed information should probably be in the section located
here:
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Developer+Best+Practices
Gildas has been including such details as part of his presentations, and its
part of the checklist template.
We would perhaps also need to be aware for R1 that some projects may not be
able to re-design quite yet. They may have to support their current API version
until an appropriate time to deprecate it in lieu of new API conforming to
standards.
Thanks,
Pam
From: <[email protected]> on behalf of
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, June 22, 2017 at 7:14 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [onap-discuss] RESTful API Design Best Practices for ONAP
Microservices
Dear ONAPer,
Most of the projects have already been approved in Beijing meeting or will be
approved in this week's TSC meeting, we're starting the development phase of
release 1 right now. I went through the API documents of a bunch of existing
projects, it seems to me that there's no consistent approach for Restful API
design and some of the APIs are not very appropriate. So I‘d like to suggest
that we could figure out a unified approach across ONAP projects for the
Restful API design before jumping into the coding job.
I have worked out a draft as the start point for discussion on this wiki page :
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/RESTful+API+Design+Best+Practices
I hope we could discuss in the community and reach consensus in one or two
weeks. Then I'd like to propose to TSC using it as a guideline for all the
projects.
What do you think about it? Please feel free to share your idea in the
comments of the wiki page so we can improve this draft quickly.
Thanks and Regards,
Huabing
_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
_______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
