A small correction to meeting minutes...
The minutes incorrectly attribute the "monolithic VDU design" to the current
ONAP modeling proposal being led by AT&T. In fact, it is a "feature" of the
ETSI NFV IFA information model that has been around for quite some time.
To date, all three data model proposals - ETSI NFV SOL001, TOSCA NFV Profile
and the ONAP DM proposal - have inherited the "monolithic VDU design" from the
ETSI NFV IFA011 spec.
In fact the ONAP DM proposal, being led by AT&T, attempts to remedy the
monolithic VDU problem, by suggesting that we split the VDU into two parts -
the software payload and the software payload "container" that can be realized
during service instantiation using physical servers, VMs, K8S pods, etc...
If I remember right, a similar approach was suggested by the OSM community
about a year and a half ago. However, their proposal was derailed due to
concerns around the impact on already existing VNF products being modeled using
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of denghui (L)
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:46 PM
To: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; firstname.lastname@example.org P
Subject: [onap-discuss] [modeling] 20180213 modeling subcommittee Meeting
Modeling subcommittee has been questioned when will our modeling DM spec come
out, below are our meeting minutes this week.
Hi Kenny, We are going to cancel next week modeling subcommittee call due to
china new year, thanks a lot for your help
20180213 modeling subcommittee Meeting agenda and Minutes
1) Resource IM YANG Xu
there is no consensus whether we need to follow ETSI NFV naming convention or
change into ONAP naming.
Two polls will be set to decide the naming convention and future meeting time.
The polls close on Feb 28th.
2) Data modeling Anatoly Katzman
DENG Hui: modeling subcommittee have to finalize the 1st draft version by M3
deadline, in this case, we need to allow solutions only 1 week, and make the
decision on Feb. 28th.
DENG Hui: there are two solutions on the table now: Monolithic VDU design and
TOSCA NFV profile, we are not make decision today, but would get basic impress
what company would like to follow:
1) Ericsson vote for of ETSI NFV Profile
2) ZTE vote for ETSI SOL NFV profile
3) Huawei vote for ETSI NFV profile
4) Nokia --no one on call
5) Netcracker (Priya TG) vote for ETSI NFV Profile
1) AT&T: Monolithic VDU
2) China Mobile: lacking information to do an informed comparison hence no
strong opinion to any specific proposal currently. The options on the table
should firstly meet the requirement as a unified DM in the community with
consistency to the IM and implementable in Beijing release cadence with vendors
support. It would be better if we could align with SDO in the same time.
a) check whether we have 3rd solution or not in a week
b) make decision on Feb.27th
3) Modeling tool poll(Jessie)
1) use github for papyrus revision
fine from IM's team (Kevin, Andy, Lingli, and YANG Xu)
Anyway, polling will end by the end of Feb.
ONAP-TSC mailing list