2019-08-28 [ExtAPI] Meeting notes
Date
Aug 28, 2019 at 10:00AM EDT
Meeting Link: https://zoom.us/j/957965398
Discussed
Recording: zoom_0.mp4
Chat Log: none
Project Update - El Alto ExtAPI status
Discussion CFS Mapping to RFS resolver @Rene ROBERT versus SDC ServiceProxy. Potential collaboration also with Third Party Operation Domain Manager from @Atif Husain. Presentation material from Atif is available here: https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/60890278/ONAP%20usecase%20-%20Third%20Party%20ODM_v18.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1566954017000&api=v2
MEF Update @Karthik Sethuraman (Deactivated) . Karthik, did not get a chance to present but he gave quick update in chat, hope to allow Karthik time on next meeting to give update.
"here is my update: 3 items of note related to MEF Legato Service API: IPS (Interface Profile Specification) - the information model part - CfC#1 deadline end of next week , Interface Implementation Specification IIS (Interface Implementation Specification) - - the API part - work started on the generic APIs as well as SD-WAN - generic APIs are based on ONAP External API as starting point.
3rd item - MEF LSO committee is discussing the best ways to document the API and the contents of such documentation, which tools to use for such developing, reviewing and delivering such documentation"
Frankfurt Release Requirements gathering page created, please add your requirements here Frankfurt Release API Requirements Gathering Page
@Adrian OSullivan Below is the CSAR I generated for an E2E Access Service which is composed of 1 MobilityService and 1 NetworkService
Next week:
MEF Update @Karthik Sethuraman (Deactivated)
Continue to discuss potential use of CDS by NBI (TMF 640)and support for macro mode Service Orders (TMF 641) @Yuriy Malakov
Continue Discuss CFS Mapping to RFS resolver @Rene ROBERT
Discuss El Alto Jira progress/issues @Matthieu Geerebaert
Third Party Domain Manger Interactions @Nishi Mathur @Atif Husain @Divyang Patel
Service Qualification API Flows @Mohammad
Examine TM Forum specs such as TMF 641 v18.5 (e.g., added service type) Should we group services to service type?
Last week: