Thanks Dan!
I fully agree to your view!
The SDN-R project just adds some wireless/ran related applications/functions
according to ONAP procedures and process to SDNC.
That was the reason, why SDN-R is a subproject of SDNC – also visible as
subfolder of in the ONAP wiki and in ONAP
Agree with Alla. The name doesn’t matter. You can call it “Pineapple”.
What we need to do is to review the ONF architecture and other relevant specs
to see if this module, indeed, implements only a subset of the SDN-C functions.
I glanced through some of these documents. The good news is like
Hi,
Thanks Alla - I would like to elaborate on this. At the end of the release we
have to be able to articulate what we are doing and why, otherwise we reduce
ONAPs credibility. Part of this is ensuring architectural coherence and the
appropriate project structure as part of our governance.
Vladimir,
if I understood Steve's comment correctly, it is not about any particular name,
but more about recognition of yet additional standalone controller, while we
don't have it as a part of our architecture.
This is why the proposal is to contain it under SDN-C (as, also according to
our
SDN-R is ONF project based on the Microwave Information Model TR-532, which is
quite distant from what is needed for cellular RAN.
So what we knew as SDN-R in fact never was SDN Radio controller :)
Therefore we are free to keep the name SDN-R or find another good looking name.
After all, it's
