Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] Action Plan towards Casablanca

2018-03-31 Thread Sauvageau, David 
Bell would like to contribute to the end user committee

Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 31 mars 2018 à 07:08, Alla Goldner 
> a écrit :

Thanks, Mazin,

We will definitely not slow down as time issue is becoming critical and try to 
come up with our proposal of realistic scope per defined prioritized areas.

We also need to define what percentage of work in Casablanca would be dedicated 
by the projects to leftovers from Beijing and to extension of S3P work.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology




From: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) [mailto:ma...@research.att.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2018 3:56 AM
To: Alla Goldner >
Cc: onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org; 
onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; 
onap-...@lists.onap.org P 
>
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Action Plan towards Casablanca
Importance: High

Thanks Alla for the summary.

Here is what we agreed to at the TSC meeting.
There are three work plans for Casablanca. The theme is increase deployability 
of ONAP.

1. Functional requirements and use cases. We agreed to establish an end-user 
advisory committee that will be driven by the equivalent of product managers 
across operators who will help to set priorties that can accelerate 
deployability of ONAP. The work of your committee on use cases and 5G 
solutioning will help to provide options for the end-user advisory committee.

2. Platform Evolution. This includes some of your list items
a. S3P new target (including code coverage)
b. Backward compatibility
c. Improve modularity and simplicity of using ONAP.

3. Broader learning and education of ONAP.
The Education committee will develop a proposal for weekly Webinars.

I am working to assemble 1. My hope is to have 3-4 operators signed up next 
week so they can meet with your team and get the work started.
Phil will make that committee official as a subgroup under LFN end-user 
advisory committee. Until then, let’s not slow down.

We also discussed what we want to accomplish prior to the Beijing meeting in 
June. We will discuss that further at the TSC meeting this week,
and also vote on the release planning for Casablanca.

Great progress by the team on Beijing. Most projects hit M4 already. Momentum 
is amazing.

Mazin


On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:03 AM, Alla Goldner 
> wrote:

Hi all,

I re-attach the picture which describes high level priorities as discussed 
during the meeting called by me on Wednesday evening. I understand this was 
discussed in details also during the TSC meeting.

What we had on the table was:

1.   Leftovers from Beijing remained from :
a.   Functional requirements (PNF, Scaling, Change Management, HPA)
b.  Leftovers from S3P support
2.   New S3P requirements
3.   All new use cases and requirements coming to Casablanca (you could see 
the variety during our meeting on Monday)
4.   A different projects proposed extensions
5.   Possibly, new projects potentially proposed for Casablanca
6.   Architecture evolution related modifications

Clearly, this whole scope will not be accomplished in a single Release, this is 
why we needed to see what would be areas of priorities.
Clearly, we may get additional input from the Service Providers, as discussed, 
but in the mean time, in order to make progress, let’s assume these are the 
priorities.

Now, in order to do constructive work and move forward towards Casablanca 
Release, specifically for Usecase subcommittee, we need to see what ongoing 
work matches the Deployability goal as defined and, additionally, extract 
generic functional requirements from the use cases brought to the table/see if 
some requirements brought to the table can be generalized.

I identify the following areas for our activities out of proposed prioritized 
areas:

1.   Leftovers of functional requirements from Beijing – as scope is pretty 
clear, I would say that at this point the required actions are:
a.   Have a detailed list of functionality proposed to move to Casablanca
b.  Negotiate with involved projects on this functionality and resources 
assigned to these activities

2.   All 5G related requirements:
a.   A realistic plan of what can be implemented in Casablanca (a subset of 
functionality discussed so far), based on available/emulated VNFs/PNFs, 3GPP 
standards’ availability etc. with flows, needed resources, affected modules

3.   All external controllers related activities – this work should be 
generalized and common principle should be developed on what we bring to 
Casablanca in such a way that it can be utilized by several use cases. Some 
initial work on this was also done in Beijing.
a.   A concrete

Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] Action Plan towards Casablanca

2018-03-30 Thread GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E) 
Chris

As Phil mentioned, this is a subcommittee of the LFN end-user advisory 
committee and does not need the approval, scope or charter
of our TSC. Phil can share status and plan.

Nevertheless, I agree that it is important for our TSC to review but we will 
not slow down the process.
thanks
Mazin

On Mar 30, 2018, at 10:45 PM, Christopher Donley (Chris) 
> wrote:

Mazin,

As we discussed, please make sure that we follow the charter in proposing the 
end-user advisory committee (I.e, formal documentation of the purpose, scope, 
membership, etc) so that the TSC can review and vote on it. I think it’s a good 
idea, but I want to see the details and make sure we follow our documented 
procedure.

Thanks,
Chris


From: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)
To: Alla Goldner;
Cc: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; 
onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org; 
onap-...@lists.onap.org P;
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Action Plan towards Casablanca
Time: 2018-03-30 17:57:00


Thanks Alla for the summary.

Here is what we agreed to at the TSC meeting.
There are three work plans for Casablanca. The theme is increase deployability 
of ONAP.

1. Functional requirements and use cases. We agreed to establish an end-user 
advisory committee that will be driven by the equivalent of product managers 
across operators who will help to set priorties that can accelerate 
deployability of ONAP. The work of your committee on use cases and 5G 
solutioning will help to provide options for the end-user advisory committee.

2. Platform Evolution. This includes some of your list items
a. S3P new target (including code coverage)
b. Backward compatibility
c. Improve modularity and simplicity of using ONAP.

3. Broader learning and education of ONAP.
The Education committee will develop a proposal for weekly Webinars.

I am working to assemble 1. My hope is to have 3-4 operators signed up next 
week so they can meet with your team and get the work started.
Phil will make that committee official as a subgroup under LFN end-user 
advisory committee. Until then, let’s not slow down.

We also discussed what we want to accomplish prior to the Beijing meeting in 
June. We will discuss that further at the TSC meeting this week,
and also vote on the release planning for Casablanca.

Great progress by the team on Beijing. Most projects hit M4 already. Momentum 
is amazing.

Mazin

On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:03 AM, Alla Goldner 
> wrote:

Hi all,

I re-attach the picture which describes high level priorities as discussed 
during the meeting called by me on Wednesday evening. I understand this was 
discussed in details also during the TSC meeting.

What we had on the table was:

1.   Leftovers from Beijing remained from :
a.   Functional requirements (PNF, Scaling, Change Management, HPA)
b.  Leftovers from S3P support
2.   New S3P requirements
3.   All new use cases and requirements coming to Casablanca (you could see 
the variety during our meeting on Monday)
4.   A different projects proposed extensions
5.   Possibly, new projects potentially proposed for Casablanca
6.   Architecture evolution related modifications

Clearly, this whole scope will not be accomplished in a single Release, this is 
why we needed to see what would be areas of priorities.
Clearly, we may get additional input from the Service Providers, as discussed, 
but in the mean time, in order to make progress, let’s assume these are the 
priorities.

Now, in order to do constructive work and move forward towards Casablanca 
Release, specifically for Usecase subcommittee, we need to see what ongoing 
work matches the Deployability goal as defined and, additionally, extract 
generic functional requirements from the use cases brought to the table/see if 
some requirements brought to the table can be generalized.

I identify the following areas for our activities out of proposed prioritized 
areas:

1.   Leftovers of functional requirements from Beijing – as scope is pretty 
clear, I would say that at this point the required actions are:
a.   Have a detailed list of functionality proposed to move to Casablanca
b.  Negotiate with involved projects on this functionality and resources 
assigned to these activities

2.   All 5G related requirements:
a.   A realistic plan of what can be implemented in Casablanca (a subset of 
functionality discussed so far), based on available/emulated VNFs/PNFs, 3GPP 
standards’ availability etc. with flows, needed resources, affected modules

3.   All external controllers related activities – this work should be 
generalized and common principle should be developed on what we bring to 
Casablanca in such a way that it can be utilized by several use cases. Some 
initial work on this was also

Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] Action Plan towards Casablanca

2018-03-30 Thread Christopher Donley (Chris) 
Mazin,

As we discussed, please make sure that we follow the charter in proposing the 
end-user advisory committee (I.e, formal documentation of the purpose, scope, 
membership, etc) so that the TSC can review and vote on it. I think it’s a good 
idea, but I want to see the details and make sure we follow our documented 
procedure.

Thanks,
Chris


From: GILBERT, MAZIN E (MAZIN E)
To: Alla Goldner;
Cc: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; onap-usecase...@lists.onap.org; 
onap-...@lists.onap.org P;
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Action Plan towards Casablanca
Time: 2018-03-30 17:57:00


Thanks Alla for the summary.

Here is what we agreed to at the TSC meeting.
There are three work plans for Casablanca. The theme is increase deployability 
of ONAP.

1. Functional requirements and use cases. We agreed to establish an end-user 
advisory committee that will be driven by the equivalent of product managers 
across operators who will help to set priorties that can accelerate 
deployability of ONAP. The work of your committee on use cases and 5G 
solutioning will help to provide options for the end-user advisory committee.

2. Platform Evolution. This includes some of your list items
a. S3P new target (including code coverage)
b. Backward compatibility
c. Improve modularity and simplicity of using ONAP.

3. Broader learning and education of ONAP.
The Education committee will develop a proposal for weekly Webinars.

I am working to assemble 1. My hope is to have 3-4 operators signed up next 
week so they can meet with your team and get the work started.
Phil will make that committee official as a subgroup under LFN end-user 
advisory committee. Until then, let’s not slow down.

We also discussed what we want to accomplish prior to the Beijing meeting in 
June. We will discuss that further at the TSC meeting this week,
and also vote on the release planning for Casablanca.

Great progress by the team on Beijing. Most projects hit M4 already. Momentum 
is amazing.

Mazin

On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:03 AM, Alla Goldner 
> wrote:

Hi all,

I re-attach the picture which describes high level priorities as discussed 
during the meeting called by me on Wednesday evening. I understand this was 
discussed in details also during the TSC meeting.

What we had on the table was:

1.   Leftovers from Beijing remained from :
a.   Functional requirements (PNF, Scaling, Change Management, HPA)
b.  Leftovers from S3P support
2.   New S3P requirements
3.   All new use cases and requirements coming to Casablanca (you could see 
the variety during our meeting on Monday)
4.   A different projects proposed extensions
5.   Possibly, new projects potentially proposed for Casablanca
6.   Architecture evolution related modifications

Clearly, this whole scope will not be accomplished in a single Release, this is 
why we needed to see what would be areas of priorities.
Clearly, we may get additional input from the Service Providers, as discussed, 
but in the mean time, in order to make progress, let’s assume these are the 
priorities.

Now, in order to do constructive work and move forward towards Casablanca 
Release, specifically for Usecase subcommittee, we need to see what ongoing 
work matches the Deployability goal as defined and, additionally, extract 
generic functional requirements from the use cases brought to the table/see if 
some requirements brought to the table can be generalized.

I identify the following areas for our activities out of proposed prioritized 
areas:

1.   Leftovers of functional requirements from Beijing – as scope is pretty 
clear, I would say that at this point the required actions are:
a.   Have a detailed list of functionality proposed to move to Casablanca
b.  Negotiate with involved projects on this functionality and resources 
assigned to these activities

2.   All 5G related requirements:
a.   A realistic plan of what can be implemented in Casablanca (a subset of 
functionality discussed so far), based on available/emulated VNFs/PNFs, 3GPP 
standards’ availability etc. with flows, needed resources, affected modules

3.   All external controllers related activities – this work should be 
generalized and common principle should be developed on what we bring to 
Casablanca in such a way that it can be utilized by several use cases. Some 
initial work on this was also done in Beijing.
a.   A concrete proposal on what we bring to Casablanca should be worked on 
and brought

I suggested end of April as a deadline for the conditional approval of the 
scope as discussed above. (Conditional is because some more detailed 
discussions with the projects after this may rule out/or add some of the 
requirements/functionalities.

For that, we need to get your revised high level proposals per (2) and (3) by 
our April 9th meeting. Please talk to me in case of any questions.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open