Meeting time: 13:00 UTC, 21:00 Beijing Time, 08:00 US Eastern
...
| Time | Agenda Item | Requested by | Notes / Links | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
START RECORDING: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 | Agenda Bashing | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 | Co-chair
| - Modeling current activity status Provide the dash board of current status and how to involve: See: Modeling Current Activity Status Please keep updated Please capture modeling requirements for R10 here: ONAP R10 Modeling High Level Requirements Proposed Jakarta Release Schedule: Release Planning: Jakarta Note: In JIRA, ONAPMODEL is the "project" we are using to capture Modeling Subcommittee release requirements. - AAI model review request Review AAI’s REST Spec/Schema AAI REST API Documentation - Jakarta on CNF and CCVPN Intent-based Cloud Leased Line and Closed-loop efforts. Do we need to invite AAI team for an update of the status? Xu will contact AAI team later. - ONAP Model Governance Update Discuss if Approved ONAP Model Governance needs to be updated Thinh: need to clarify poll vs vote (defintion), clarify how to do poll when multiple proposals, align with Modeling sub-committee page on "The modeling subcommittee operates on a rough consensus basis. If the subcommittee is unable to reach consensus on what modeling advice to offer, the subcommittee will refer the matter to the TSC." Marian: need to define what is "rough consensus" Kenny: there's no clear definition of "rough consensus" in ONAP now, not like in RFC7282 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282); the committee is expected to give suggestions and recommendations to the TSC Andy: the "suggestions and recommendations" are considered as "rough consensus" Kenny: according to RFC7282, "rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accomodated" Marian: how to do when there are some objections? Andy: it depends on the issue, the modeling subcommittee needs to analyze the issue, and judge by the solutions to see if rough consensus can be reached Thinh: what rules or govenance process TSC and other subcommittees are using? Marian: what is the purpose or idea of a poll? Andy: collect feedback/opinions of the model proposal, and allow people who do not attend the call to express the opinions Marian: how to interpret the poll result for ASD? Andy: people explicitly express their opinions, and modeling subcommittee needs to reach rough consensus based on the result Marian: what if no rough consensus is reached? Andy: perhaps raise to TSC Kenny: Everything I can I all just say, "...subcommittee operates on a rough consensus basis. If the subcommittee is unable to reach consensus on what advice to offer, the subcommittee will refer the matter to the TSC" conclusion #1: agree to refer to RFC7282 for the definition of "rough consensus" Xu: whether people can agree that we need to update the current process? Kenny: there's no fundamental errors on the page. may need to highlight the poll is gathering the opinions. the overall opinion is agree to have some updates. Thinh: think the current statement is fine Andy: agree to update the process, need to add "escalation to TSC" Kenny: it wouldn't hurt to add "escalation to TSC", but necessarily needed as it's documented in the charter | |||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | ETSI CNF support
| R9 DM proposal: https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=93011772 ongoing work on alignment IFA011 v4.3.1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| 5+ | ASD model
| 1）Plan for the PoC: Application Package Onboarding to SDC 2）IM: Application Service Descriptor (ASD) onboarding IM 3）DM: Application Service Descriptor (ASD) Resource Data Model 4）ASD in NSD: NSD requirements for ASD deployment 5）Packaging proposal: Application Service Descriptor (ASD) Onboarding Packaging Format Comments: Marian request to move the model to clean according to Kenny's suggestion. Kenny: no agreements in TSC, the TSC is basically leaving the decision back to the modeling subcomittee Thinh: the proposal is approved, requesting the model to move to cleanshould be moved to clean, happy to discuss further updates to the model Xu (as a co-chair): the decision is not to put the proposal into "clean" now, the existing comments need to be discussed and addressed before approval Workshop with ETSI:
| |||||||||||||||||||
| ? | Reverse engineering
| Jacqueline Beaulac [Ericsson] | AAI Reverse-engineering -- K8S resource | ||||||||||||||||||
| ? | Topology model
| https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Proposed+Topology+IM+Sketch | |||||||||||||||||||
| 0 | Modeling Documentation | ||||||||||||||||||||
...