Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Importance of common auth service in this release

Kanagaraj, we started collecting none functional requirements for the next release here: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/R2+proposals+for+Non-functional+requirements so they can be prioritized. Could you document your suggestion there? I do agree that our authentication/authorization setup

Re: [onap-tsc] [Onap-usecasesub] R2 use cases planning

I like where this is heading. If we were true agile we would decouple this a bit. We take the use cases, break them down in platform features, add the platform features to the backlog of each project and each project can decide which platform backlog features to work on for the next release.

Re: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Just to be clear it’s development resources – people writing actual code. Let me also try to separate resources a bit: 1. There are core development resources. People which write, integrate and test code which is part of the platform. 2. There are developers which work on

Re: [onap-tsc] Migration to *.onap.org

Also not sure if it is entirely black and white. There might be some projects we can move in the R1 timeframe if we allow for one project at a time migration. Then the PTL can make that choice based on there workload and project complexity. Oliver > On Aug 4, 2017, at 2:44 AM EDT, LEFEVRE,

Re: [onap-tsc] Enforcing an "Upstream first" approach to ONAP

I think we all agree on the goal. I do wonder though how much of what you see is an artifact of projects getting established and moving large pre existing code fragments as seed code into the correct location and how much is really new development which has started for this release and been

Re: [onap-tsc] Migration to *.onap.org

Could we put that on the TSC agenda on Thu? Thx Oliver > On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:07 AM EDT, LEFEVRE, CATHERINE > wrote: > > ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT *** > Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. > >

[onap-tsc] ONAP User Group

I think ONAP should have an ONAP User Group. The goal of this group would be to foster the use of ONAP rather then handle the development of ONAP which we have been so focused on. I think if we intermingle the two to much we are just slowing things down. Now I don’t know what form this should

Re: [onap-tsc] Committers and voting - Please read.

+1 On Jun 30, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Andrew Grimberg > wrote: To help weed things down I would suggest that every repository in a project be required to define a distinct list of committers and not allow an umbrella project to

Re: [onap-tsc] Committers and voting - Please read.

Mazin, your email triggered me to actually go through the wiki and get some stats. I attached a spreadsheet with committers per company and project (I did this manually so there might be some minor mistakes but the trend holds). Also the companies are sorted by appearance so the order is

Re: [onap-tsc] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

Can we put the optimization framework back on the agenda too? I think we have addressed Stephen's and Chris’s concerns and I am not aware of any other. Thx Oliver On Jun 22, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Phil Robb > wrote: The Agenda has been

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

> “[may|will] need to….” language to “may ….” to clarify that point. > > Also (since it will come up tomorrow), please adjust the committer list. > Everyone on the project is currently listed as a committer. > > Chris > > From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org > [ma

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

) CMSO, you could put: > These will be delivered as 3 modules. One for HAS, one for CMSO and one for > the service design framework. > The HAS and CMSO modules will execute both as services on DCAE and > independent processes. > -- > > BR, > > Steve > &

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

) CMSO, you could put: > These will be delivered as 3 modules. One for HAS, one for CMSO and one for > the service design framework. > The HAS and CMSO modules will execute both as services on DCAE and > independent processes. > -- > > BR, > > Steve > > Fro

Re: [onap-tsc] Face to Face meeting agreements

.5945 > >> On Jun 12, 2017, at 1:35 PM, SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) >> <spat...@research.att.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Kenny Paul <kp...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>> All of the use cases were approved.

Re: [onap-tsc] Forward:Re: Comments about Holmes

Yuan, just to be clear we did agree to integrate Holmes into DCAE in release 1.0: "DCAE supports Holmes to be deployed as an analytic application in the form of docker(s)." As for which use case is using which configuration this will have to be decided as part of the release planing I

Re: [onap-tsc] Tentative July ONAP Developers Face-to-Face Meeting

That’s not how I took the poll. I thought the question was “if it was decided that there was a meeting these would be possible days that work”. I am wondering if we could make this a regional/virtual meeting. E.g. AT and a good number of the other ONAP members have quite elaborate

Re: [onap-tsc] Face to Face meeting agreements

On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Kenny Paul > wrote: All of the use cases were approved. That’s not correct. The toy use case and the vEPC/voLTE use case were approved. The vCPE use case is still being worked with the deadline for all

Re: [onap-tsc] Network Function Change Management Project Proposal

a group interested and it > eventually plans to have a result I don't see why it couldn't start now if we > are clear on what it is to do. > > BR, > > Steve > > BR, > > Steve. > > Sent from my Phone > >> On 9 Jun 2017, at 11:23, SPATSCHECK, O

[onap-tsc] Network Function Change Management Project Proposal

During the F2F meeting we discussed a project proposal on the topic. As this addresses workflows across components rather then build a component the question came up what form this should take. 4 options are proposed 1. Make it a project and add a clear deliverable (e.g. Documentation) to the

Re: [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals

Could we also start listing who is supporting the open source VNFs? E.g. even the simple open source based VNFs we are using for the current ONAP demo based on the seed code took a couple of people 2 months or so to get to work properly in the integration environment. I would assume that for

Re: [onap-tsc] wiki and conference calls

should post these recording and meeting notes, and if so, where? Danny From: <onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>> on behalf of Ed Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com<mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 8:35 AM To: "SPATSCHECK, OL

Re: [onap-tsc] Thoughts on next steps.

Yuan, let me separate things a bit. The way I look at it is that there is a set of use cases which gate the success of the release. Those use cases have a set of VNFs. I completely agree with you that ONAP should support many commercial VNFs. In fact I would like all commercial VNFs to be

Re: [onap-tsc] Proposal: Architecture Subcommittee

Don’t get my comment wrong I am in full support of an architecture subcommittee. I am somewhat worried on scope and process though. If the architecture team can put release gating requirements on the project as outlined below (maybe I didn’t understand that correctly …) what is the process to

Re: [onap-tsc] CI/CD

Yes that would be in scope of the integration project. Oliver On May 11, 2017, at 4:46 PM, Stephen Terrill > wrote: Hi All, I’ve become aware of colloborative work between a number of communities regarding CI/CD, where there

Re: [onap-tsc] Seed code for Service Orchestrator

So am I. I thought in the charter we had agreed that the MSO code base would be used for this. Similar to the 3 legacy Open-O components. Was there any discussion on this anywhere? Thx Oliver > On May 11, 2017, at 3:48 PM EDT, eric.deb...@orange.com wrote: > > Hello > > I am surprised

Re: [onap-tsc] Project Proposal: ONAP Operations Manager / ONAP onContainers

where it will be installed, (from theory, it could be packed in a VM or a container), but OOM chose docker. Secondly from its distribution, Microservices Framework is part of ONAP itself; while OOM will be distributed as tools for ONAP, just as some tools which will be distributed from Integration pr

Re: [onap-tsc] Project Proposal: ONAP Operations Manager / ONAP on Containers

ns Manager and container proposal in scope. Am I interpreting this correctly? Thx Oliver > On May 10, 2017, at 3:35 PM EDT, Sauvageau, David <david.sauvag...@bell.ca> > wrote: > > Oliver – I can move it there. Was not aware thanks > > On 2017-05-10, 3:30 PM, "SP

Re: [onap-tsc] Project Proposal: ONAP CLI

I would rather use scripts then CLI as Brian pointed out but on the other hand this project will hurt nobody as long as it’s built on top of the REST APIs. So in my mind this comes down to who wants to put resources on this. I guess what you are hearing is that some companies won’t … . Oliver

Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Projects

As I am ready to start commenting on the various proposals I was wondering what mechanism we should use for that. Should we just use the confluence comment feature? If we do that we need to make sure that the primary contacts are responsive in editing the proposal/responding to the comments.

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

Chris From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:34 PM To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris); Ed Warnicke; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; onap-tsc at lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Cha

[onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter

anticipated issues which might rarely/never occur. Oliver > On Apr 21, 2017, at 1:47 PM EDT, Ed Warnicke wrote: > > Inline... > > On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) research.att.com> wrote: > > I guess you could argue that our current code