All, A small correction to meeting minutes...
The minutes incorrectly attribute the "monolithic VDU design" to the current ONAP modeling proposal being led by AT&T. In fact, it is a "feature" of the ETSI NFV IFA information model that has been around for quite some time. To date, all three data model proposals - ETSI NFV SOL001, TOSCA NFV Profile and the ONAP DM proposal - have inherited the "monolithic VDU design" from the ETSI NFV IFA011 spec. In fact the ONAP DM proposal, being led by AT&T, attempts to remedy the monolithic VDU problem, by suggesting that we split the VDU into two parts - the software payload and the software payload "container" that can be realized during service instantiation using physical servers, VMs, K8S pods, etc... If I remember right, a similar approach was suggested by the OSM community about a year and a half ago. However, their proposal was derailed due to concerns around the impact on already existing VNF products being modeled using monolithic VDU's. That's all, Alex Vul Intel Corporation From: onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of denghui (L) Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:46 PM To: onap-disc...@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org> Subject: [onap-discuss] [modeling] 20180213 modeling subcommittee Meeting Minutes Hello all Modeling subcommittee has been questioned when will our modeling DM spec come out, below are our meeting minutes this week. Hi Kenny, We are going to cancel next week modeling subcommittee call due to china new year, thanks a lot for your help ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20180213 modeling subcommittee Meeting agenda and Minutes https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Modeling+sub-committee+meetings 1) Resource IM YANG Xu there is no consensus whether we need to follow ETSI NFV naming convention or change into ONAP naming. Two polls will be set to decide the naming convention and future meeting time. The polls close on Feb 28th. https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Meeting+Time+Poll https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Naming+Convention+Poll 2) Data modeling Anatoly Katzman DENG Hui: modeling subcommittee have to finalize the 1st draft version by M3 deadline, in this case, we need to allow solutions only 1 week, and make the decision on Feb. 28th. DENG Hui: there are two solutions on the table now: Monolithic VDU design and TOSCA NFV profile, we are not make decision today, but would get basic impress what company would like to follow: Vendors: 1) Ericsson vote for of ETSI NFV Profile 2) ZTE vote for ETSI SOL NFV profile 3) Huawei vote for ETSI NFV profile 4) Nokia --no one on call 5) Netcracker (Priya TG) vote for ETSI NFV Profile Operators: 1) AT&T: Monolithic VDU 2) China Mobile: lacking information to do an informed comparison hence no strong opinion to any specific proposal currently. The options on the table should firstly meet the requirement as a unified DM in the community with consistency to the IM and implementable in Beijing release cadence with vendors support. It would be better if we could align with SDO in the same time. Next step: a) check whether we have 3rd solution or not in a week b) make decision on Feb.27th 3) Modeling tool poll(Jessie) 1) use github for papyrus revision fine from IM's team (Kevin, Andy, Lingli, and YANG Xu) Anyway, polling will end by the end of Feb. Best regards, DENG Hui
_______________________________________________ ONAP-TSC mailing list ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
