This is just to let everyone know that we are running behind on the
notifications. Also a few people have reported that their submission did not go
through so please look over the list below to ensure your submission is there.
NOTE: THIS IS JUST THE LIST SUBMISSIONS - THIS IS NOT THE
The architecture subcommittee is working on the high-level architecture. See
http://onap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/guides/onap-developer/architecture/onap-architecture.html
Projects themselves are publishing the more detailed architecture, APIs, etc.
on readthedocs.
Chris
From:
Dear Kenny,
I would like share my point of view :
As Manoop mentioned below, It would be better, if we could bring Portal, ONAP
CLI span across Design Time and Run-Time services similar to OOM reported now.
May be something as follows:
[cid:image002.png@01D35DFB.B2EE1C00]
Hi,
so I've been watching the video of the 9 November TSC meeting, and find the
discussion of the branching model for Amsterdam quite interesting. Is this
documented anywhere on the wiki? I ask because I have a couple of questions:
- my understanding of the stated plan is that Amsterdam will be
Hi Susana,
VFC project in R1 includes NFVO and VNFM components, mainly
focused on the NS LCM and VNFLCM.
NSLCM NBI and GVNFM NBI please refer to
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/VF-C+R1+Deliverables NSLCM API Specification
v0.1. and GVNFM API
Some additional info on a question of deployment scenarios – 4 questions in.
We don’t currently support Rackspace HEAT anymore since the DCAE refactor –
unless we are planning a retrofit of the vanilla changes back to the Rackspace
yaml and a way to use Designate in Rackspace’s managed
Are Azure & AMZ clouds really supported in Amsterdam as NFVI+VIM (or at
all) ? If not, then they should not be in this "official" picture.
Pasi
On 11/13/2017 07:03 PM, Kenny Paul wrote:
> As was pointed out in Paris there are too many variations of the
> Amsterdam architecture which is bad to
I agree, we don’t need to mention commercial cloud solution in our architecture
Regards
Jamil
Le 14 nov. 2017 à 14:06, Pasi Vaananen
> a écrit :
Are Azure & AMZ clouds really supported in Amsterdam as NFVI+VIM (or at all) ?
If not, then they
+Lisa
> On Nov 14, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Pasi Vaananen wrote:
>
> Are Azure & AMZ clouds really supported in Amsterdam as NFVI+VIM (or at all)
> ? If not, then they should not be in this "official" picture.
> Pasi
>
> On 11/13/2017 07:03 PM, Kenny Paul wrote:
>> As was
Hi Vladimir
The diagram is more a technical overview of onap components.
Regards
Jamil
Le 14 nov. 2017 à 11:25, Vladimir Yanover (vyanover)
> a écrit :
Hello, Kenny
Thanks for sharing the Architecture diagram.
I will appreciate if you help me with a
Hello Kenny
I have a question on the ETSI aligned of VFC module, to my knowledge the VFC
interfaces are not aligned with ETSI NFV.
I think we need to remove this term from VFC and to add that ONAP architecture
is Functionally aligned with ETSI NFV.
Regards
Jamil
De :
Hello, Kenny
Thanks for sharing the Architecture diagram.
I will appreciate if you help me with a question that I have on the ONAP
architecture documentation.
Consider potential products to be integrated into the ONAP system itself,
interfacing to its components such as the Policy Framework and
For Amsterdam, Multi-VIM/Cloud supports both OpenStack based and VMware Clouds.
A concrete example is the VoLTE use case:
https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6593603
--
Thanks,
Ramki
From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org]
On Behalf Of
How is it related to my question on the timeline for delivery of specification
with certain level of details?
Thanks
Vladimir
From: jamil.cha...@orange.com [mailto:jamil.cha...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:16 PM
To: Vladimir Yanover (vyanover)
Cc: Kenny
Jamil, we can not spell out the names of all of the components on the
slide; there isn't room. It must be legible, including from a distance (eg
in a public presentation).
Chris can answer #2.
Thanks, Lisa
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 7:14 AM, wrote:
> Hello Kenny
>
>
Hi Lisa
I understand but also we cannot keep a no meaning abbreviations...
We can have a list of abbreviation or a simplify name like:
· Clamp > Closed Loop
· AAF > Authorization
· OOF Optimization
Regards
Jamil
De : Lisa Caywood [mailto:lcayw...@linuxfoundation.org]
Thanks, Jamil. I like the diagram. My question was
Is there an intention / timeline for delivery of specifications with the level
of details as e.g. in OpenStack (ETSI NFV, …)?
Vladimir
From: jamil.cha...@orange.com [mailto:jamil.cha...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 3:45 PM
To:
+ 1
Amsterdam repositories support various openstack variations - VMWare Openstack,
Windriver Openstack, Newton Openstack etc... Though Azure and EC2 APIs can be
abstracted by Openstack API, I think that there would be some
conversion/translation required, but I don't see any code in there.
Hello Kenny
Additional comments and proposals on this figure:
1- Remove ETSI NFV alignment from VFC and to replace it by a general note
that 'ONAP is functionally aligned with ETSI NFV architecture'
2- We need to remove AWS, Rackspace and Azure. Why Rackspace is listed and
not
Yes this is in the Scope of the Architecture subcommittee
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Goals
De : Vladimir Yanover (vyanover) [mailto:vyano...@cisco.com]
Envoyé : mardi 14 novembre 2017 14:55
À : CHAWKI Jamil IMT/OLN
Cc : Kenny Paul; onap-discuss; onap-tsc; Lisa Caywood
Objet : RE: [onap-tsc]
And where this intention / timeline is captured?
Thanks
Vladimir
From: jamil.cha...@orange.com [mailto:jamil.cha...@orange.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:29 PM
To: Vladimir Yanover (vyanover)
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Official ONAP Architecture Slide
It should be part
Jamil,
As far as I know, being able to utilize public cloud (Azure/AWS/etc) compute
resources is an ONAP requirement. The question is to what extent our
architecture diagrams should represent the reality of individual releases vs
being more release agnostic and future looking?
Regards,
Alex
"The officially approved image for the *Amsterdam *Architecture".
We need both r1 and "beyond" slides ... but this slide was explicitly
said to be a representation of *Amsterdam* architecture. As such, IMHO
it should be correct on what it can & cannot support, which is why I
raised the point.
Pasi - agree with you... we need a general-purpose architecture diagram as well
as release specific diagrams with (perhaps) greyed out areas for what we don't
support in a particular release...
From: Pasi Vaananen [mailto:pvaan...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:43 AM
To: Vul,
Hi Susana
Ok in this case we have to remove this from VFC.
Regards
jamil
De : Sabater, Susana, Vodafone Spain [mailto:susana.saba...@vodafone.com]
Envoyé : mardi 14 novembre 2017 16:26
À : Lisa Caywood; CHAWKI Jamil IMT/OLN
Cc : onap-discuss; onap-tsc
Objet : RE: [onap-tsc] Official ONAP
25 matches
Mail list logo