...
The Platform Maturity recommendations are documented in "Platform Maturity Status" from djhunt
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Color code:
M1 Actual represents the assessment before M1. M1 Target represents, at M1 date, what the team plans to implement. M4 result represents what has been really implemented at M4 date . All these fields are self-assessed by the team. |
| AREA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design / Run-Time | Performance | Stability | Resiliency | Security | Scalability | Manageability | Usability | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min TSC Recommendations | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | |
| Project Name | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| A&AI | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | WIP | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 (stretch goal; 2 unlikely) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1+ (see note 10) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Application Authorization Framework | R | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| APPC | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (APPC) 2 (Integration) (Note 1) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 - Partial (Note 2) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| CLAMP | D | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (2 if CLAMP get more resource) | 1 | 1 | 1 (2 if CLAMP get more resource) | |
| Common Controller SDK | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| DCAE | D & R | 1 | 2 (stretch) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 (+topic security w/dependency Note3) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (+logging v1.2) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| DMaaP | R | 1 | 1 | WIP | 1 | 1 | WIP | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | WIP Note 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Documentation | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
| External API Framework | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Holmes | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | WIP | 1 | 2 Stretch | 1(descoped) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 Stretch | WIP |
| NA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Logging Enhancements Project | R | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 (see note #8) | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| POMBA (under but separate pod from Logging) | R | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Microservices Bus | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Modeling | D/R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Multi VIM/Cloud | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| MUSIC | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| ONAP CLI | D & R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||
| ONAP Operations Manager | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ONAP Optimization Framework | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| ONAP Usecase UI Project Proposal | D | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1+ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1+ | 1 | 1 | 1+ | 1 |
| Policy Framework Project Proposal | D & R | 1 | 2 | 1+ See Note #5 | 1 | 1 | 1 See Note #4 | 2 | 2 | 1 See Note #4 | 1 | 2 | 1 No Silver Badging | 1 | 1 | 1 See Note #4 | 1 | 1 (logging v1.2 only) | 1 See Note #6 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Portal Platform Project Proposal | D & R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1+ See Note #7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| SDN-C | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Service Design & Creation | D | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1+(AAF integration and https support) WIP | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1(with logging v1.2 spec support) WIP | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Service Orchestrator | R | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| VFC | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| VID | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 (Note 1) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 - WIP | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1(with logging v1.2 spec support) | 1 (Note 8) | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| VNF SDK | D | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| VNF Requirements | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
| VNF Validation (VVP) | D | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |||||||||||||
Note 1: Assumption is that platform 72 hour test is run by Integration team; Component team will run regression (Level 1) on Casablanca release
Note 2: APPC was Level 1 compliant in Beijing; however, Level 1 definition changes in Casablanca. APPC cannot commit to Level 1 due to pending item. See M1 Planning for more details.
Note 3: Dynamic topic provisioning and RBAC assignment has dependency on DMAAP-BC (DMAAP project) and AAF team
Note 4: The policy project added a new application component to support SDC Service Distribution for the HPA Use Case. However, promised resources did not fulfill any of the S3P work for this runtime component.
Note 5: Only the drools PDP had a performance plan improvement. We ran out of time to build a performance plan for XACML PDP. (NOTE: No requirements for brand new Apex PDP, that is targeted for 'E' release).
Note 6: The resources for doing logging v1.2 went away as part of the contract/restructuring between the two corporations early 2018.
Note 7: AAF integration into portal-sdk is partially complete and CADI integration is planned for next release - for more details see Risk #3.
Note 8: logging spec and implementation changes done with AT&T/TechMahindra to sync to Acumos - logging resources are absolute minimal during casablanca - 1.2 spec completion is pushed to Dublin
Note 9: AAF CADI integration is pending
Note 10: logging spec very close to 1.2; completion slated for Dublin