This table summarizes the plan in regard to support of "Platform Maturity" for each project in Beijing 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:
Yellow: same maturity.
Green: improved maturity level.
Red: below maturity level
| AREA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design / Run-Time | Performance | Stability | Resiliency | Security | Scalability | Manageability | Usability | |||||||||||||||
| Min TSC Recommendations | Min Runtime: 1 Min Remaining: 0 | Min all projects: 1 | Min Runtime: 2 Min Remaining: 1 | Min all projects: 1 | Min Runtime: 1 Min Remaining: 0 | Min all projects: 1 | Min all projects: 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Project Name | Actual | Target | M4 result | Actual | Target | M4 result | Actual | Target | M4 result | Actual | Target | M4 result | Actual | Target | M4 result | Actual | Target | M4 result | Actual | Target | M4 result | |
| A&AI | R | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 11 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 11 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Application Authorization Framework | R | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 11 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 11 | 1 | 2 | WIP Note 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 Note 16 | 0 | 1 | 0 Note 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| APPC | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 Note 12 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 Note 14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| CLAMP | D | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Common Controller SDK | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA Note 2 | NA Note 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 18 | 0 | NA Note 3 | NA Note 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| DCAE | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | WIP | 1 | 2 Note 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | WIP | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | WIP |
| DMaaP | R | 0 | 1 | WIP Note7 | 1 | 1 | WIP Note7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | WIP Note9 |
| Documentation | NA | Oversee documentation from all other projects that support their maturity commitments | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| External API Framework | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Holmes | R | 0 | 1 | WIP | 0 | 1 | WIP | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 19 | 0 | 1 | 1 Note 20 | 0 | 1 | 1 Note 20 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| NA | Integration Team will perform overall E2E testing with the 4 use cases. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Logging Enhancements Project | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 Note 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 17 | ||||||
| Microservices Bus | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | Note15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Modeling | D | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Multi VIM/Cloud | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||
| MUSIC | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| ONAP CLI | D & R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| ONAP Operations Manager | R | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| ONAP Optimization Framework | R | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 11 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 11 | 1 | 2 | WIP | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | WIP | 0 | 1 | WIP | 1 | 1 | WIP |
| ONAP Usecase UI Project Proposal | D | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Policy Framework Project Proposal | D & R | 1 | 1 | No work done | 1 | 1 | No work done | 1 | 2 | WIP | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | WIP | 1 | 1 | WIP | 1 | 1 | WIP |
| Portal Platform Project Proposal | D & R | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| SDN-C | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | WIP | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | WIP Note 18 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Service Design & Creation | D | 0 | 0 | No work done | 0 | 1 | WIP | 1 | 1 | No work done | 0 | 1 | WIP | 0 | 0 | No work done | 0 | 0 Note 5 | WIP | 0 | 1 | WIP |
| Service Orchestrator | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||||||
| VFC | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1(*) Note 6 | 0 | 1 | WIP | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| VID | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 Note 5 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| VNF SDK | D | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| VNF Requirements | NA | NA. VNFRQTS is primarily a documentation project and does not deliver ONAP platform code | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||
| VNF Validation (VVP) | D | |||||||||||||||||||||
Note 1: For DCAE the plan is to meet level 2 for DCAE components that can be made into docker containers, but for those components that cannot, it will depend on upstream providers (i.e. Cloudify Manager and CDAP). During M1 review, TSC agree with level 2 ok with exception granted for cloudify
Note 2: For CCSDK, as a project that provides a library framework, CCSDK has no standalone component that can be soaked
Note 3: Scaling does not apply to CCSDK itself, as a set of libraries.
Note 4: LOG: standard OOB OOM Kubernetes resilience/stability
Note 5: SDC and VID. For Manageability, instantiation in < 1 hour is already supported. No plan to support single loging in Beijing.
Note 6: Due to lack of resources, VF-C may not achieve scalability level 1 for all components in this release and plans to support scalability level 1 for part of components first.
Note 7: 72 hrs. Soak test completed for Message router and in progress for Bus controller.
Note 8: We reached 50% code coverage for Message Router. Code coverage for Bus controller is in progress.
Note 9: Documentation is completed for Message router, in progress for Bus controller.
Note 10: AAI hasn't cleared vulnerable dependencies and won't be clear before M4 but we have a plan to have them clear by release
Note 11: Performance and scalability tests will be performed during integration testing
Note 12: 72 hour soak test completed on Amsterdam code base due to defect APPC-658 which prevents DMaaP messages from being received or sent. Test results and notes can be found at: ONAP APPC 72 Hour Stability Test Results. Once DMaaP issue is resolved on Beijing, we will re-run 72 hour soak test.
Note 13: CII Passing is 95%; Code Coverage is at 48.2% and progressing; however, not likely to meet 50% by 3/29.
Note 14: APPC component is fully scalable via approach of using Kubernetes, APPC instances (N+) can be added to the cluster; however, due to constraints encountered with MySQL DB, the DB is not scalable until we migrate to MariaDB plus Galera (planned for Casablanca per feedback from CCSDK), which would provide the active-active architecture. Further details are tracked under OOM project (OOM-733), who we've been working with.
Note 14: MSB CII Badge progress is 98% ; the main challenge for us is to fix all the security issues above level 4, we're still working on that. The coverage is already above 50%.
Note 16: AAF latest code set supports certificate manager and OAuth. Need to test the security during integration testing
Note 17: logging spec page being finalized with mostly AT&T - spawned a Casablanca spec moving forward
Note 18: Remaining security vulnerabilities in CCSDK are due to library versions delivered in OpenDaylight Nitrogen release. These cannot be cleared without breaking OpenDaylight platform.
Note 19: The current status of Holmes CII Badge progress is 98%. There's still one severe problem unsolved. But it seem to be a false positive. Details could be found at Holmes Security/Vulnerability Threat Impact Analysis. Now we are still working on the issues ranked above L4.
Note 20: Holmes itself has implemented all the functionalities regarding scaling and logging. Now we are still working with the DCAE team for integration.