...
| Topic | Discussion | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calendar Entry | Calendar now open for editing ... but how? | ||||||||
R6 CCSDK-based Solution | Project as part of CCSDK ( Yuriy Malakov )
| ||||||||
| R6 Frankfurt | In release requirements page: M4 March 5, 2020 Frankfurt Release Requirements (TSC has already approved Green status for U/C). CCSDK, SDN-C - Dan Timoney MVP (min viab. product) discussed on SDN-C call. Req not totally clear, schema model. Take what is in ConfigDB; finalize the Data Model approach.
| ||||||||
R7 Project Proposal | RunTime Config DB Project Proposal (Oct 25 2019) Project Proposal work to be done during R6. Project Proposal for R7. Presentation at Arch S/C and TSC during R6.
| ||||||||
R7 Separate Component |
Email from Dan Timoney My understanding from Sandeep was that this work was very much a stretch for Frankfurt. So, I’m okay with work starting in Frankfurt, as long as its structured so that it’s a separable component (i.e. as long as, if it’s not completed in Frankfurt, the platform is not fundamentally broken). I would NOT support creating a separate repository, since there is a fair amount of overhead involved in maintaining each repository on an ongoing basis – both machine and human resources. The Linux Foundation itself has been pushing back on the number of repositories the ONAP projects have and there is now a new approval process needed in order to add new ones. If a new repository is needed, then this team will need to convince me why no existing repository can be used AND will need to provide a resource who is willing to maintain that repository (i.e dealing with security vulnerabilities; policing code coverage ; doing release builds, etc). | ||||||||
R7 Guilin Content / requirements | Requests for R7 Requirements are up. Guilin release - functional requirements proposed list Timeline - Sign-off for R6 is May 7. Historically M0 kickoff for R7 is May 7th PROPOSALS FOR R7 GUILIN FOR WHAT WE PLAN TO BE DOING IN R7
| ||||||||
| Renaming the Project | RENAMING THE PROJECT ("Service" vs "Database") Database The original idea was a configuration database available at Runtime. Use cases to store. Historical been with the project since the beginning. Service Since working on project proposal, it has grown, the same argument works against use. A wide variety of qualifiers could be put there and it still won't cover. Would move to something more abstract. Abose and beyond a standard IT database. For example service information, policy information, CLAMP information, exo-inventory (information outside of A&AI), topology information, application information - it is conceivable that many other types of information could before. Config if someone wants to add additional information a place to hold information. An engine, hubcap is a part of a automobile that provides a service: vehicular motion. A database is a specific technology and implementation. Requirements around for current data & historical (temporal) careful not to talk about the technology. Potentially more than one database. Data Persistency Service → "functional" Data Layer Service RunTime Configuration DataBase → "technology" State (of Network) Database Configuration Operations Database (C.Op.DB) / Swami Golden Configuration Database / Fred Policy Topology Configuration RunTime Service Exo-Inventory Database | ||||||||
Vendor/SP may have an independent database that they may wish to "sync" up with the RTCDB Data in that independent DB maybe overlapping type information Store directly data inside of one data-lake already used by the SP. SP already has an existing Data lake → use that instead of RTCDB. |
SUPPORTING FILES
| Description | File |
|---|---|
...