...
| TOPIC | DISCUSSION |
|---|---|
| DEVELOPMENT OF PLACE OBJECT in ONPA PLATFORM INFORMATION MODEL | Development and incorporation of STANDARDS for the PLACE object
This will be worked as the GEOLOCATION Modeling work in the R6 Modeling HLR: ONAP R6 Modeling High Level Requirements Additional fields (low level fields) - consider context of how ONAP would use the information; it is unlikely that some of the lower level fields will be useful. (e.g. Cubicle, workstation level). Potentially rack information; equipment model IETF in M3100 stored on the Managed Element attribute. Wiki pageONAP Platform Information Model. Place has been introduced as Experimental Wiki page for root: Root (Root Model object)
ACTION: Information Model & PLACE Object proposal from Kevin Scaggs / Start with "as built" model / Bob Papa & SALVATORE RICCI ACTION: Complex object reverse engineering - Mapping of Place & A&AI Complex Object / Do an analysis on the Complex object / Reverse engineer of Complex / logical model vs grounding in current implementation → evolution / who will consume changes & use cases - downstream system / Standards → Needs Use Cases → Information Model → Objects & Data Model / Subject Modeling S/C. Globalization of location information / simple things we can do wo/ breaking the complex object e.g. changing behavior applied to multiple countries are we missing attributes evolving location info for other U/C needs.ACTION: R7 need & application? VNF will likely need the address/location info/complex before PNF. (1) Containerization (2) multi-cloud 3rd party clouds & (3) attributes missing or extended A&AI schema update (4) support globalization. / VNF verizon ETSI alignment R7 Use Case "Onboard ETSI SOL004 compliant VNF packages" Civic address and Geolocation information - co-existing. |
| INTEGRATION OF COMPLEX OBJECT & PLACE OBJECT | How do we associate in the model and execute in A&AI code - the inter-dependencies between the Place object and complex Refactoring code, A&AI data model, may need to refactor code. These part of place object implemented as part of the complex object. The complex object is in the addendum at the bottom of this Wiki ACTION: How would this tie into the complex object or link/associate with the complex object. CONTACT: Jimmy Forsyth ACTION: (OPEN) (Oct 3) - Jimmy (A&AI PTL) said that Complex Object is entwined in the code; hard to redact it; smarter to evolve. Tie place object into the complex object; maybe complex could be subobject of place. Jimmy also mentioned that the Place & complex could be linked together. Maybe complex would be a subobject to place if there is overlap in fields & concepts. output of Graphgraph need UML model ACTION: Complex object reverse engineering - Mapping of Place & A&AI Complex Object / Do an analysis on the Complex object / Reverse engineer of Complex / logical model vs grounding in current implementation → evolution / who will consume changes & use cases - downstream system / Standards → Needs Use Cases → Information Model → Objects & Data Model / Subject Modeling S/C. Globalization of location information / simple things we can do wo/ breaking the complex object e.g. changing behavior applied to multiple countries are we missing attributes evolving location info for other U/C needs. |
MAJOR TOPIC #1b - GEOLOCATION BASE INFO (Standards)
| TOPIC | DISCUSSION | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GEO-LOCATION STANDARDS | (RFC 6225 into ETSI SOL 001& REFERENCES (Summary) | STEP 1: | INPUTS - Standards Inputs for place | locationIM Object
|
| ||||||
RFC6225 GEOLOCATION FIELDS | Geolocation fields from RFC6225. (CLOSED) – see table below ACTION: (DONE) Fill in tie-in fields to standards elements
| ||||||||||
COMMON LOCATION MODEL / GB922 | Standard TM Forum GB922 - Location Modeling Discussion (Email) | Keong Lim For your investigation into the location attributes, I wonder if you’ve considered what is in the TMF SID | , specifically the classes for Urban Property Address and Urban Property Sub-Address as per: https://www.tmforum.org/resources/suite/gb922-information-framework-models-r18-5/ | ||||||||
| COMPLEX OBJECT w/ PLACE-LOCATION OBJECT | Find out who the principle subject matter expert (SME) or contact for the Complex Object is. Would changes to the complex object be easy? Are they already being used throughout the source code? Would they be Schema breaking changes? Honor what has already been done in Complex Object. COMPLEX OBJECT: How-To: Register a VIM/Cloud Instance to ONAP click on "CREATE A COMPLEX OBJECT" AAI REST API Documentation - Frankfurt (swagger for complex object) Take what is more data-center focused. Introduce new attributes as necessary. / Info Model - Data model Map between.
CONTACT: (Identify contact). “What field” (semantical descriptor/association). ANSWER: A&AI Team. ACTION: Complex object | ||||||||||
COMPLEX OBJECT UPDATES FOR GEOLOCATION INFO | – There are a number of A&AI Complex geolocation information that are driven by the ETSI NFV Geolocation RFC 6225 that we need to investigate how they are acquired or set in DHCP. And once point #2 is solved, mapping those to the appropriate complex object elements.
CONTACT: Jimmy Forsyth RESULT: (Oct 3) - Ben was on A&AI (Oct 2) Jimmy said that Complex Object is rooted and entwined in the code so it would be very hard to redact it; it would be smarter to evolve. Need to understand how to tie place into the complex object, maybe complex could be subobject of place. Jimmy also mentioned that the Place & complex could be linked together. That might be a solution/way forward. Maybe complex would be a subobject to place if there is overlap in fields & concepts. ASK A&AI - an example of the use of the Complex Object. Sep. location type things in other objects they have put it in. know complex object has location stuff baked into it. are there other objects that we need to look at. | RFC6225 GEOLOCATION FIELDS |
| Description |
|---|
Latitude Uncertainty - When the Ver field = 1, this field represents latitude uncertainty. Uncertainty = 2 ^ ( 21 - x ). x = 21 - ceil( log2( uncertainty ) ) |
Latitude – Latitude in binary geodetic form. A 34-bit fixed-point value consisting of 9 bits of integer and 25 bits of fraction. |
Longitude Uncertainty - When the Ver field = 1, this field represents longitude uncertainty. Uncertainty = 2 ^ ( 21 - x ). x = 21 - ceil( log2( uncertainty ) ) |
Longitude – Longitude in binary geodetic form. A 34-bit fixed-point value consisting of 9 bits of integer and 25 bits of fraction. |
Altitude Uncertainty - When the Ver field = 1, this field represents altitude uncertainty. |
Altitude – A 30-bit value defined by the Altitude Type field |
Altitude Type – (1) Altitude in Meters, (2) Altitude in Floors. 1 (indicates Altitude in Meters) |
Altitude Resolution - value encodes the number of high-order altitude bits that should be considered valid |
Map Datum - The Map Datum used for the coordinates given in this option: WGS84, NAD83 + NAVD88, NAD83 + MLLW. 2 (Indicates NAD83+ NAVD88) |
ETSI SOL001 - work with ETSI to incorporate it into ETSI SOL 001. Incorporate Geolocation element into ETSI SOL 001 standards.
ACTION: (DONE) Contacted Thinh N. (Nokia); Thinh RESPONDED to bring it up at the Modeling Call. Ben → Contact Thinh
ACTION: (DONE) Proposal in ETSI. Geoloc harmonization standards would go back to ETSI SOL001. Incorporate into Standards.
MAJOR TOPIC #2 - PNFD MAPPING & SOL001
| Item | Notes |
|---|---|
MULTI-LANGUAGE SUPPORT | LANGUAGE – Check on representation of location for Non-western Languages & scripts. Civil address specify in the data. How would A&AI represent addresses but expressed in different language. Store the address with way to designate language type. Relevant only if SP deals with more than one language at a time. DISPLAY - If SDC and VID do not display multi-lingual support, do we assume that the Latin alphabet would be displayed for non-Latin characters? STORAGE - How would other languages be stored in the fields which will store location/address/place information.
|
| ALIGN SOL001 & A&AI | There are 12 elements from the civic_address_element that do not map “nicely” to the complex elements fields. These are notably: division, block, street group, additional loc info, residence name, unit, floor, room, postal name, PO box, additional Code, seat/cubicle/work station. We need to have decide if we wish to intentionally not map these or introduce new fields into the complex object. Note this item is dependent on a number of above items being solved first. ACTION: Analysis to complex object. If what’s in complex object is sufficient and raise at the modeling and second opinion. (1) Internationalize the complex object, IETF 4776. (2) resolution. Maybe generalize the country/regional specific location elements. as a discussion group, discuss the model; for the missing field would have to show that there is a need within ONAP; is there a ONAP requirements for those item. Is there another attribute that covers that or is it something new that needs to be added. a Topic in Common. If the discussion would is good with it discuss it in Poll. RESULT: (Oct 3) should be covered with the to use "MAP" data structure in CA Place object fields. ACTION: (DONE) done with analysis & development of the PLACE & Complex object (see above)object. Result use "MAP" structure in Place object fields |
PNF PLUG and PLAY / PNFreg VES ETSI Mapping SOL004 | During PNF PnP PNFRegistration VES event will send information about the PNF Eventually sends FILLS civic address & geolocation information in the VES event . (1) VES PNFregistration VES events need to be updated. SOL004 PNFD Vendor Package. (2) decide which parameters we want to have the VES event report. ACTION: (Eventually incorporate new civic address & geolocation info into the PNFregistration VES event) |
...
| TOPIC | DISCUSSION |
|---|---|
| PNFD MAPPING | PNFD and ending up in an instance data (A&AI Model mapping). From PNFD (onboarded) loaded into SDC AID to A&AI Improvement of ingestion onto SDC AID PNF ETSI NFV SOL001 - descriptor_id, function_description, provider, version, descriptor_invariant_id, name, geographical_location_info, virtual_link SDC - invariantUUID, uui, customizationUUID, version, type, name, description, resourceVendor, resourceVendorRelease, resourceVendorModelNumber, category, subcategory, nf_function, nf_role, nf_type, software_versions ACTION: Go to SDC and/or CDS. Identify Use Case. Will specification for geolocation in SOL001. Geolocation in PNFD not per site. Inventory information. For vendor may not be so useful as sites instances are tied to locations not so much descriptors; for service provider probably country or region may be useful. Onboarding in ETSI. SDC → Vendor PNFD → SDC Model |
...
| TOPIC | DISCUSSION |
|---|---|
| 5G Service Model Use Case | The 5G service model use case in R6: 5G RAN SERVICE MODELING & DEFINITION in R6 Frankfurtis analyzing 5G Service Model U/C in R7: R7 5G Service Modeling Highlights of 5G Service Model U/C
in R6 we expect only modeling analysis, in R7 look and see which parameters might actually be used.
ETSI Thinh / Model coordinated / Information Modeling need & use case 5G
Right now stored in controller's database. R6 CCSDK / R7 C&PS - pulled out as separate repository. would model. model concepts of NE, EP, to scaffolding. Modeling team with ideas. Propose as R7 future requirement. Providing logical model. Network slicing
NEXT STEP: Modeling discuss with Modeling S/C. What do we need to store; information model for C&PS. path to follow to get to info needed which guides API development & schema formation. Storing information relates to Netconf yang model ; common constructs topo endpoint that you would hang w/ more detailed implementation specific resource information; extend it for any resource; common constructs. ONF. R7 mature a model to evolve. Introduce modeling requirement |
...
| TOPIC | DISCUSSION | |
|---|---|---|
| TIMETABLE (WHAT RELEASE TO INTRODUCE) | Investigate when these would be really necessary. Are they needed in R6? Our discussion today (educated guess) is that they will be needed probably a release or two AFTER an actual, real physical DU is integrated with ONAP. No code changes being requested in R6; but will likely need S/W changes in R7. ACTION: R6: OUTPUT in R6 - Need to document what S/W and U/C (PnP) impacts that there will be. Schema impacts, API changes, and consumers of the API impacts. | NEXT MEETING In R7 OOF SON PCI Use case uses the concept of Geolocation as it relate to Cell Objects, which is a "first application" for the Geolocation model development. |
| MEETING INFO | Meeting on the FIRST Thursday of Each Month ONAP Meeting 4 is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Meeting ID: 112 318 171 | |
| R7 Model Release Planning | ONAP R7 Modeling High Level Requirements Modeling Activity & Use Case Relevance. See Category 2 (table 2) for Geolocation development |
FILES & PRESENTATIONS
| Desc | File |
|---|---|
| new PNF PLACE Object (June 2020) | |
Place modeling development / discussifPNF Place Object (July 2020) |
ATTENDEES
| DATE | Attendees |
|---|---|
| |
| |
| Benjamin Cheung |
RECORDING
| Date | Zoom Recording | Audio File |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
x |
...