@lists.onap.org] De la part de Christopher Donley
(Chris)
Envoyé : lundi 24 juillet 2017 23:40
À : Thomas Nadeau; Alla Goldner; Pasi Vaananen;
onap-disc...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>
Cc : onap-tsc
Objet : Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Architecture Progress
Tom,
I ful
llet 2017 23:40
À : Thomas Nadeau; Alla Goldner; Pasi Vaananen;
onap-disc...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-disc...@lists.onap.org>
Cc : onap-tsc
Objet : Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Architecture Progress
Tom,
I fully agree with your comments about top-down management. The architecture
subc
i Vaananen; onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
Cc : onap-tsc
Objet : Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Architecture Progress
Tom,
I fully agree with your comments about top-down management. The architecture
subcommittee is here to support and advise the projects, not command the
projects. I also agree with
+1
This is a good reflection and also backs up the discussions that I have seen
indicating that we have to document both the current reality and where we want
to go, and discuss the steps on how to get there.
There is more work to be done, and this has focused on the most urgent issue so
far.
er ; Pasi Vaananen
; onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-tsc
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Architecture Progress
Hi,
I've read through all the messages on this thread this afternoon,
and have a few things to add from my past experiences with open s
Hi,
I've read through all the messages on this thread this afternoon,
and have a few things to add from my past experiences with open source projects
that might help level set things and also help clarify the confusion that I
sense some people are experiencing in wh
From: onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of denghui (L)
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 6:52 AM
To: Alla Goldner ; Pasi Vaananen
; onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-tsc
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] Architecture Progress
Hi all
I guess t
Cc : onap-tsc
Objet : Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Architecture Progress
Just clarify one important thing here, GNVFM is in the scope of ONAP, no on the
side of VNF vendors.
Inline please == >
From: Pasi Vaananen [mailto:pvaan...@redhat.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 8:53 PM
To: denghui
Just clarify one important thing here, GNVFM is in the scope of ONAP, no on the
side of VNF vendors.
Inline please == >
From: Pasi Vaananen [mailto:pvaan...@redhat.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2017 8:53 PM
To: denghui (L) ; Alla Goldner ;
onap-disc...@lists.onap.org
Cc: onap-tsc
Subject: Re:
I respectfully disagree, at least based on what has been said /
presented in the meetings and written down on the present documents:
"Interface between VNF and ONAP is quite simple :"
Given that this has been under discussion for multiple years now, I
would not say there is anything simple about
Dear Hui,
First of all, let's assume that all people participating in the discussions do
understand what they are talking about. I strongly believe such a respectful
behavior will help to reach consensus, which is our common goal.
Secondly, let's look on the presentation provided by Vimal. Ther
Hi all
I guess that people are confusing about the interface of VNF with ONAP
architecture,
Interface between VNF and ONAP is quite simple : Heat(ECOMP) or TOSCA(OPEN-O),
it has nothing with architecture discussion.
I agree with Chris's suggestion here, either you need to understand the
imple
Hi Pasi, Jamil, Chris, all,
I fully agree with Pasi's view.
When we started this work ,the assumption was that whatever our merged
architecture will look like internally, we should deliver a single set of
interfaces between the VNFs and ONAP.
And this is not what we are having right now with R1
I know architecture committee worked very hard to achieve this. But could we
create a “clean” architecture diagram to reflect the reality? I understand that
we are still working on R2 architecture. But for R1, I hope this architecture
diagram could:
1. Have all TSC approved projects on it
14 matches
Mail list logo
