Two alternatives:
- Using OOM (K8-based strategy), which was approved in the past face-to-face meeting and will be the standard/preferred way in the long run;
- Using Heat template, which is what we did for OpenECOMP.
(D: Done | C: Committed, when? | NC: Not Committed)
| Project Name | Needed by UC | Heat Template | OOM | Project Tech. Lead | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A & AI | Yes | D | D | Complete | |
| Application Authorization Framework | No | C | Not Release A | ||
| APPC | Yes | D | D | ||
| CLAMP | Yes | D | D | ||
| Common Controller SDK | Yes | N/A | N/A | As a library, CCSDK is not installed separately but rather is installed as part of the client project(s) that uses it (e.g. APPC, SDNC) | |
| DCAE | Yes | Gen 1 - D Gen 2 - C (by M4) | D D | ||
| DMaaP | Yes | D | D | ||
| Documentation | Yes | N/A | N/A | ||
| External API Framework | No | ||||
| Holmes | Yes | N/A | N/A | Managed by DCAE | |
| Integration | Yes | N/A | N/A | ||
| Logging Enhancements Project | No | NC R2? | C | (OOM ) - 3 containers committed (some filebeat config pending) | |
| Microservices Bus | Yes | D | D | ||
| Modeling | No | C | |||
| Multi VIM/Cloud | Yes | D | D | Patch | |
| ONAP CLI | No | D | D | ||
| ONAP Operations Manager | Yes? | N/A | N/A | ||
| ONAP Optimization Framework | No | N/A | N/A | Not in Release A | |
| ONAP University | No | N/A | N/A | ||
| ONAP Usecase UI Project Proposal | Yes | D | Mike to work on this one | ||
| Policy Framework Project Proposal | Yes | D | DÂ | Complete for 1.1 | |
| Portal Platform Project Proposal | Yes | D | D | ||
| SDN-C | Yes | D | D | ||
| Service Design & Creation | Yes | D | D | SDC will use the heat based deployment For R1 | |
| Service Orchestrator | Yes | D | D | ||
| VF-C: Virtual Function Controller | Yes | D | D | ||
| VID project | Yes | D | D | ||
| VNF SDK | Yes | D | D | ||
| VNF Requirements | No | N/A | N/A | Documentation | |
| VNF Validation | No | N/A | N/A | Not in Release A |