Alex
The "requestAdditionalCapabilities" are mainly keyvalue pairs in the IFA011.
In R2, the HPA related KEYs should be as inputs and the key name or value
structure should be discussed in the model.
BR
Maopeng
原始邮件
发件人：Vul,Alex <alex....@intel.com>
收件人：张茂鹏10030173;
抄送人：yang...@huawei.com <yang...@huawei.com>jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com
<jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com>onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
<onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>
日 期 ：2018年03月01日 19:23
主 题 ：RE: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes
and IFA011
Maopeng,
Forgot to mention one more thing…
Already existing VNFs, with already existing VNFDs that use alternative IFA011
HPA specification format, based on “requestAdditionalCapabilities” attribute,
are not going to be impacted by this change… VNFs that are used as part of the
VoLTE use cases don’t need to be converted to the new format, unless there a
desire to do so…
Same goes for already existing HEAT based VNFs…
Kind regards,
Alex Vul
Intel Corporation
From: zhang.maope...@zte.com.cn [mailto:zhang.maope...@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 10:25 AM
To: Vul, Alex <alex....@intel.com>
Cc: yang...@huawei.com; jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com;
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
Subject: 答复: Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM
classes and IFA011
Hi Alex
As a model contributor, join the discussion.
Could you give the specific HPA parameters and completed usecases in R2?
Does the LAB need to provide some specific hardwares to test these
features?
If we model the HPA parameters and implemented in R2, I think some real
implemented inputs are needed.
Thanks
Maopeng
原始邮件
发件人：Vul,Alex <alex....@intel.com>
收件人：yangxu (H) <yang...@huawei.com>jessie jewitt
<jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com>onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
<onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>
日 期 ：2018年03月01日 16:48
主 题 ：Re: [onap-discuss]答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and
IFA011
_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
Jessie, Xu
There are a few things still missing from the agreed upon model. We need to add
in items related to the HPA support. HPA is a functional requirement being
implemented in R2. We need to ensure that the agreed upon model does not
preclude the implementation of HPA.
Thank you,
Alex Vul
Intel Corporation
From: onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of yangxu (H)
Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 9:29 AM
To: jessie jewitt <jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com>;
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
Subject: [onap-discuss] 答复: [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes
and IFA011
Hi Jessie,
For the agreement, please look at
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Design+Time+Model+Clean+Version.
The differences with IFA011 are shown in orange.
As for “vnfProductName”, the agreement is to have the same name as IFA011 for
the time being.
Best regards,
Xu
发件人: onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] 代表 jessie jewitt
发送时间: 2018年2月28日 23:45
收件人: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
主题: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Comparison of R2 proposed IM classes and IFA011
Hi-
I'm trying to understand how the IM model proposed for R2 compares to
IFA011.
When I look on this wiki:
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resource+IM+Discussion+Based+on+IFA011
it looks like the IFA011 model was reviewed and decisions were made. For
example, in the VNFD, one decision was to rename vnfProductName to Name. It is
marked as "AGREED".
However, when I look at the R2 class VNFD, the attribute is still called
"vnfProductName".
Should I be ignoring the decisions made on the wiki above?
Is there another place that shows the differences between the R2 classes and
IFA011.
Thanks for your help,
Jessie_______________________________________________
onap-discuss mailing list
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
