MODELING - Maybe first focus on models classes that A&AI might need. How do those elements get populated & modified. RTCfg will also need details & the architectural approach how they would approach extensibility; representing in swagger API or flexible schema approach.
A&AI - The A&AI will be stopping at level of PNF (CU/DU), the cells underneath associated w/ a DU you can't find in A&AI. That would be stored in RTCfg DB the index would match with the PNF.
NETWORK SLICING - (Swami) building up, intro some classes. in R7 should we introduce all the classes? Q? (Michela) Where were the classes introduced? For R6 modeling the slice as a service using the only the existing constructors & current platform info-model.
ORAN MODELING - The ORAN alignment, w/ their yang info-models. ORAN-ONAP alignment. Contact ORAN SMEs.
RunTime Config DB - Q? (Joanne) The config DB would be focused on SON U/C importing ORAN yang model to be used in the SON/PCI & associated attributes in R6. (Swami) No. The yang models are not officially available from ORAN. In OOF/SON will still use the old yang models. There is work in converting yang to the schema. ORAN yang model itseill be in R7. Alignment taking ORAN alignment; earlier CMNotify notification over Netconf I/F because ORAN decided it will be a VES event, that VES have a draft specification basedon that will generate a VES notification.
RunTime config DB Schema & Extensibility - Q (Andy)? How does RunTime Config DB deal w/ Extensiblity - the YANG model. Schema in R6 is hard-coded; iin the long term the info from vendor provided PNF package could guide the RTCffDB schema (R7). Q (Joanne)? Relation between 5G info model . Attach the 5G Specific aspects for 5G elements (xNFs). Runtime pc the yang model info that would be represented in A&AI. other info only be in RTCfgDB. MODEL the DOMAIN. Config stuff as a "blob" need to parse. A view of what the info model is. Anything dynamic, changeable, or discovering (would not be in A&AI).
OOF/SON PCI - The Parameters already used for the OOF/SON PCI U/C e.g. NetworkID, CellID, PCIValue, nbrList, ... are these in 3GPP TS28.541 (mapping?). Key ideas - OOF/SON/PCI cares about Cells. Model Cells ... how should they be modeled? is that something that should be evolved in the platform model. how Will that evolve. Maybe start w/ SON as a reference or starting point. The requirements are lmited what info we are looking for in Cell.
DOMAIN - RAN (Wireless). the modeling stuff that is introduced will not preclude the ability to support other domains, such routers. EXTENSIBILITY.
MODELING S/C - NEXT STEPS: ... present an abbreviated presentation to Modeling S/C, what would be reused or re-imported from the 3GPP model and how to attach/hang them to base classes. 3GPP has functions functions separated out and attached to the element. ASK who would like to help create the papyrus model as input.
A&AI - NEXT STEPS I've made presentation at the A&AI Team (Weds 9AM EDT USA), they will also be hosting future discussions on parameters flagged as "A&AI" in the spreadsheet.
NOTES - Q (Zu Q.) Add a column for "Notes" justifying if something will be in A&AI.
Jan 22 - CMNotify; SA5 3GPP Meeting. CMNotify domain. VES Event spec 7.1.1. Alok Gupta has not updated the VES event. On a leave of absence (Hip surgery). CMNotify is going to be done by Nokia. Sync with Sandeep Shah
Target is common LCM API in CCSDK usable by different controller personas to simplify for both clients and controller implementations
Support PNFs for applicable LCM operations in a consistent way
Enable use of CDS blueprint processor to customize behavior of LCM operations in the 'self-service' category
In ONAP R4, CDS can be used for pre/post-instantiation configuration. Generic and model-driven design should allow CDS usage to be extended for additional operations and use cases.
Evolution steps that preserve backwards compatibility for clients
Present at the Arch S/C Apr 9 (Tue) second presentation.
Action Items: Use case subcommittee to reach the Dublin use case owner to provide the following information. what's the current percentage of testing automation regarding your use case and functional requirements; what will be the plan to be 100% and constraints (resources availability etc.)