I know architecture committee worked very hard to achieve this. But could we 
create a “clean” architecture diagram to reflect the reality? I understand that 
we are still working on R2 architecture. But for R1, I hope this architecture 
diagram could:

1.       Have all TSC approved projects on it and have them positioned as they 
are. (Right now, they are combination of projects, projects internal functional 
block, subcommittees, …, and some projects are not there).

2.       Remove components which do not exist, for example, high availability.

Regards,

Helen Chen

From: <[email protected]> on behalf of "Christopher Donley 
(Chris)" <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 1:05 PM
To: onap-tsc <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" 
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [onap-discuss] Architecture Progress

Dear ONAP Technical Community,

I’d like to update you on progress from the Architecture Committee.

·         For Amsterdam, we agreed to use the current architecture, as 
discussed since ONS.  This is to reduce risk of late changes to the project 
teams, who have built their plans based on the current baseline.

·         Longer-term, starting with Release 2, we reached consensus on an 
approach to resolve the APP-C/VF-C challenge.  We are developing a three-layer 
orchestrator/controller functional architecture, with service 
orchestration/resource orchestration/controllers.  Note that this functional 
architecture does not imply a project structure.  Between now and the beginning 
of the R2 planning cycle, the team will drill down to the next level of detail 
on interfaces and project alignment, and then the projects will map code into 
the architecture to guide R2 plans. Cross-project discussions have already 
begun, and will continue over the coming weeks.  Meeting logistics will be sent 
to the ONAP-discuss email list for those who are interested in participating.

I have attached a set of diagrams that we reviewed in the Architecture 
Committee to illustrate both the R1 and R2 architecture.  Note that in the R2 
slide, since we are focused on the functional architecture and not the 
projects, we removed some of the boxes listing projects that support ONAP, but 
don’t provide interfaces or data flows through the system.

For those interested in more detail, we will discuss this during the developer 
meeting next week.

Chris

_______________________________________________
ONAP-TSC mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Reply via email to