Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 16 Next »

Date

Ideas for Discussion and Tentative Agenda

  • Administrative Items
    • Committer promotion request vote for Ramki
    • Welcome to Siamak Layeghy from University of Queensland
    • We need to capture meeting notes (this page is a starting point)
  • Sync up on M2 Checklist, deadlines, etc.
    • Unit tests and status
    • Functional testing needs
    • Need to start thinking about integration tests
  • Seed code is a bit stabilized, so implementation of use case adaptation and new functionality ramps up
    • Need to coordinate the set of contributors listed
    • One approach is to identify contributors working specifically on (a) R2 items, (b) R3+ items, (c) Longer-term items, etc. 
  • Regular review of Sprints and JIRA items
    • Rotate scrum master responsibilities

Beijing Release deliverables:

  • Upstreaming and stabilization of seed code:
    • OSDF
    • Homing
    • Change Management (demonstrative application)
  • Jenkins integration
    • Verify, merge, CSIT
    • Sonar
    • Clm
  • Nexus: snapshot binaries
  • Functional testing:
  • Unit Testing:
  • API design and development:
    • Policy
    • SO
    • AAI
    • MultiCloud
  • Feature Development
    • vCPE
    • HPA
    • VNF scale out   
  • Platform Maturity:
    • Scalability - OOM Integration
    • Resiliency - OOM Integration
    • Security - CII badging
    • Manageability
    • Stability
    • Usability
    • Documentation
      • API (SO-OOF)
      • Deployment docs
    • Performance 

Attendees

Goals

  • Speed up the project in an "agile" manner and get the requirements and APIs nailed down

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes



Discussion on functional features that are applicable across use cases (Alex Vul)



Discussion on fetching policies (EMF vs TOSCA) and whether SDC GUI will show the models. Ramki: strongly recommend Tosca.



What to do if ONAP and ECOMP-SO are differences?



Discussion on A&AI interface – some functionality we want may need agreement from A&AI team



Identification of port numbers (see notes below)

Action items

  • Create a JIRA for Developer Page (Dileep to create and assign to Sastry for now)
  • CLM – Sastry to follow up
  • Jenkins Merge Job for OSDF – Sastry to follow up
  • Meeting with Seshu/Cory on OOF-SO API changes (Matti/Ankit)
  • Alex to review functionality that is required for multiple use case (focus on R3 needs) – we can probably do it as needed 
  • Functional testing needs: Everyone should review the test cases (provide feeback; at a minimum be aware of the scope and functionality)
  • Develop a scrum stand-up meeting template – get an OK from the team
  • Identify contributors committed for R2 release (OK to start with small list and add)
  • Create jira's for model-driven optimization modules (minizinc dockerization and linking to OSDF) – simple unit tests and example CM app (Ramki)
  • Create jira's for MSB and API (Ankit)
  • Interaction wirh policy team to finalize policy modeling language (TOSCA vs EMF) and also the variant (DCAE vs next-gen) – has to be TOSCA sooner than later
    • Create a requirement for Policy team (so they will either blanket support for ONAP or not)
    • Extreme case, use DCAE model structure (TOSCA, but is a variant)

Scrum Standup Meeting

Probably good to have the following for each contributor:

During the daily weekly scrum meeting (maybe add one more meeting as we get closer to release deadline), each team member answers the following three questions:

  1. What did you do yesterday last week?
  2. What will you do todaythis week?
  3. Are there any impediments in your way?
ContributorWhat did you do last week?

What will you do this week?

Are there any impediments in your way?
SastryNothingNothingNope

















Links and additional notes

Additional Notes:

  1. A PhD student that has worked on Minizinc models for Software-defined Constrained Optimal Routing Platform for SDN (article link). Link for slides is here.
  2. Arun Arora from VMWare will participate in end-to-end integration work (MC, OOF, etc., from vCPE perspective) 
  3. Ramki's question on port numbers: are they fixed (yes), do we want to keep them so (maybe):
    1. As an example, OSDF has 14699 and we don't want it to be so. 
    2. With K8S, we do not even need to specify ports (via proxies). However, how would we reconcile with that?
    3. Decide on which processes go inside K8S pods
  4. A container specifies a port to bind to (inside a pod or container). K8S will provide a proxy for other components to connect to this container. So, modules can have their own ports without ever exposing them and only expose via proxies. Only need to ensure that no collisions occur within a pod.
    1. Older code base was on a "large docker host" and multiple applications had to be on same IP, hence port numbers like 14699.
    2. Conclusion: we can keep weird port numbers, and can use proxies, and one does not interfere with another



  • No labels