R2 non-functional notes from Wed. AM session
- Kenny Paul
Slide 4 -
availability- think about recovery times - in a server context.
perf time measurements need a reference point - carriers start with a service level metric- onap is further down and need metrics that roll up.
requirements should be on availability versus on starting with recovery functions
A: framework for discussion
What is the stability requirement for R1?- how can we set R2 w/o having R1 metrics for test first. Minimum needed now.
A: need to baseline R1 first. Helen please come to Arch meeting to share thoughts 10/10 meeting.
Slide 5-
Steve T taking it back to the seccom
review of R2 wiki page
no priority has been set for listed requirements. - priorities may be different depending on projects.
a set of use cases can probably be extracted for end to end and testing
99.999% highly costly to work through- recommend leaving the "how" up to the ISPs to achieve - include hooks that allow the providers to plug into and make use of. level of quality needs to be baked in.
definition of criteria with usecase. - need an e2e view set by architecture as ptls are looking on their areas. Arch Sub provide not advice, but guidelines for ptls to follow.
a lot of infrastructure is probably in place, but no e2e clarity.
All requirements should a have a objective measure with them. non should be submitted w/o a way to measure.
Review of yesterday's carrier grade req
will include add'l columns on the R2 page for specific responsibilities - if no one fills them in, the requirements will be scoped accordingly.
A team is needed to work with the PTLs on the requirements to make sure we have a cohiesive platform.
Everyone wants to contribute - "requirements" should be "identify needs" to have a great systems. From that we should get measuremewnts nd the support system to deliver.
role of arch committee needs to be clarified. people closest to the code should help define that role.
Ack that it can't be pushing from the outside in. Arc sub now focused or the next release to get ahead of the curve.
need something that is more than an advisory role - need one to provide oversite-
that model may work if all projects are represemnted in that oversite role.
Defined entrance and exit criteria for testing is critical.
is thewre a way to articulate the requirements at the unit level.
A: threasholdsa will be decided and the projects will need to make the determination of the level of unit test.
for VNF benhmarks we should ingest them from OPNFV
Next steps- condense yesterday's list, jason' page and today's notes - will do this by the end of next week.
Mazin- Carrier grade can have several different levels - want a small team to make the proposal at the TSC meeting on the 12th . - Jason, Chris, Alla, Steven T, Alex