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 3 Current »

Agenda:

  • Backlog
  • PNFD update
  • Policy Draft
  • Result of DM discussion regarding alignment with SOL001 task, impact to IM in Dublin

Material:

Minutes:

  • Backlog:
  • PNFD update:
  • Policy Draft:
    • scope: the current scope of policy model is ECA type policy, declaritive or intent based policy is FFS; for the whole ONAP, covering both resource and service domain
    • mark attributes not in use as "Future"
    • refinement of the model hasn't been fully post to the wiki (available in papyrus)
    • plan to model "events" as a super class of "VES events" , "policy events", etc.
    • comment:
      • enumerations should not be put in the class diagram
      • how to model the action "sending an event"? Kevin will check with the policy team, the possible way is sending a message (probably an event)
      • the relationship between the policy model with different implementations (imperitive, intent, etc.): to be discussed
      • guarding policy (permissions) could be added
    • Kevin Scaggs would contact with Michela Bevilacqua , policy team and interested people to have a dedicated discussion on the plan for the Dublin release
      • go back to IM call afterwards
      • could check with use case teams (e.g., 5G FM)
  • Impact to IM resulting from DM SOL001 alignment discussion:
    • discussed in last week's F2F meeting
    • key findings:
      • ONAP extensions do not have a consistent way
    • recommendation:
      • propose to update IFA011 to align with ONAP, need to decide which extensions are suitable to be proposed to ETSI, which are not (unique need for ONAP)
      • suggest to prepare for the joint meeting of multi-SDOs
    • next step:
      • review the current comparison with IFA011 (Comparison of Current R3 Clean Version with IFA011 v2.5.1), red/orange are differences between ONAP model and IFA011 spec
      • clarify which are needed to go back to ETSI, which are needed for update of the ONAP R3 model Former user (Deleted)
      • suggest to provide rationale for proposal to ETSI
      • ETSI has a F2F in mid-February, suggest member companies to submit proposals and let ETSI give feedback for April's meeting
      • Chuyi has additional proposals against IFA011 v2.5.1, she plans to have a presentation next week
  • No labels