...
| USE CASE | Integration Leads | Lab | Committed Companies | Interested Companies | Overall Commitment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulk PM | Wind River (WR) Lab | AT&T, Ericsson* | High | ||
PNF Pre-Onboarding/ Onboarding | WR Lab | AT&T, Huawei, Ericsson*, Nokia* | High | ||
| Configuration with NetConf | WR Lab | AT&T, Ericsson* | High | ||
FM Meta Data PM Dictionary & Schema | WR Lab | AT&T, Ericsson, Nokia* | High | ||
| OOF & PCI | Rutgers WinLab | AT&T*, Wipro*, Tech Mahindra | High | ||
| PNF Plug and Play | WR Lab | AT&T, Huawei, Ericsson, Nokia* | High | ||
| Network Slicing | Modeling only (no Integration) | N/A | AT&T, Amdocs*, Ericsson | Modeling only (High) | |
| PNF Software Upgrade | (TBD)wangyaoguang | WR Lab | AT&T, Huawei*, Ericsson | High |
The COMPANIES Column in the above table represents the primary companies that are involved with the Use Case. They may be involved to various degrees. It doesn't assign a "degree" of involvement or work, but rather they are involved or intend to contribute or have contributed or are working the use case actively.
...
| U/C | SDC | VID | Port | SO | AAI ESR | SDN-C | APP-C | DCAE | OOF | Policy | CLAMP | DM aaP | AAF | VNF SDK | REQ | MODEL COM | OOM | VIM | Pomba Panda | CIA | CLI | Consul |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulk PM |  | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Onboarding | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| NetConf | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |  1 | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| FM PM Dict | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| OOF PCI | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | YES | YES | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| PNF PnP | N/A | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| S/W Upg | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Slicing | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | YES | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
...
Stretch Goal (N/A) but if extra resources are available some changes may be made.
Note (1): YES This is still in discussion, solution depends on AAF. Will have to either the preferred option is to include AAF, but if the Jira is not implemented in time in R4, an alternate simplified solution will be adopted that excludes AAF from the U/C. (Feb 21) discussed in Security sub-committee, presented proposed scope for R4 wo/ AAF. AAF might provide functionality available (undocumented). Manual steps to setup certificates (wo/ AAF) workaround. With AAF could automate the TLS certificate setup.
...