Page Comparison

General Information:

• Date and Time: 2019, May 6th, 9pm~10pm Beijing Time, 9am~10am US Eastern
• Meeting Room: https://zoom.us/j/645982535
• Meeting Recording: 
• Meeting Chat Log: 

Agenda:

• Agenda review
• Feedback to ETSI
• Party proposal

Material:

• ETSI NFV IFA011 changes response to ONAP (ref: NFVIFA(19)000290r1)
• Party

Minutes:

• Feedback to ETSI
  
  • haven't done the feedback yet
  • the comments received are marked in red
  • ask for agreement on Tuesday about whether to take these feedback to ETSI, and if permitted, Thinh will provide a contribution back to ETSI
• Party proposal
  • leftover questions:
    • 1) do we 100% follow TMF? A: No. Would deviate if needed.
    • 2) do we want more detailed proposal?
      • Kevin's plan is to have a skeleton first and fill in the contents where necessary.
  • Further comments:
    • There's a comment on the wiki questioning the use case of having the model of vendors.
      • There's code using these concepts (but maybe not actually used), the purpose is to give some visibility. Example: license.
    • use case's relationship with models
      • model without use case seems useless
      • having model discussion first could help understand the use case
      • the models takes time to be mature, so maybe it's better to have model discussions first or at the same time as the use case
      • need motivation for creating the models, it's hard to review the model without understanding the use case
      • suggestion: question: what's the relationship/process between use case and model work?
        • should we ask use case subcommittee to review the models after the models are proposed?
        • should we ask use case subcommittee to document the related use cases (e.g., license) before making the models?
        • should we do the use case and models in parallel? how?