This table summarizes the plan in regard to support of "Platform Maturity" for each project in Casablanca Release. The data below are extracted from each project plan.
The Platform Maturity recommendations are documented in "Platform Maturity Status" from djhunt
Legend
Color code:
- Red: below maturity level
- Yellow: same maturity.
- Green: improved maturity level.
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 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 (stretch goal; 2 unlikely) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Application Authorization Framework | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (2 if CLAMP get more resource) | 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 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Documentation | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
| External API Framework | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| 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 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| 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 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 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 | |||||||
| 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 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1+ | 0 | 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) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1(with logiing v1.2 spec support) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Service Orchestrator | R | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 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 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1(with logiing v1.2 spec support) | 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.
Note 7: AAF integration into portal-sdk is partially complete and CADI integration is planned for next release - for more details see Risk #3.