Modeling Subcommittee 2022-02-28

START RECORDING: 

5

Agenda Bashing

@Xu Yang

@guochuyi

30

Co-chair

ONAPMODEL-3: General issues of Modeling subcommitteeOpen

@Xu Yang

@guochuyi

-  Modeling current activity status

Provide the dash board of current status and how to involve:

See: Modeling Current Activity Status

Please keep updated

Please capture modeling requirements for R10 here: ONAP R10 Modeling High Level Requirements

Proposed Jakarta Release Schedule: Release Planning: Jakarta

Note: In JIRA, ONAPMODEL is the "project" we are using to capture Modeling Subcommittee release requirements.

-  AAI model review request

Review AAI’s REST Spec/Schema AAI REST API Documentation - Jakarta on CNF and CCVPN Intent-based Cloud Leased Line and Closed-loop efforts.

Do we need to invite AAI team for an update of the status?

Xu will contact AAI team later.

- ONAP Model Governance Update

Discuss if Approved ONAP Model Governance needs to be updated

Thinh: need to clarify poll vs vote (defintion), clarify how to do poll when multiple proposals, align with Modeling sub-committee page on "The modeling subcommittee operates on a rough consensus basis.  If the subcommittee is unable to reach consensus on what modeling advice to offer, the subcommittee will refer the matter to the TSC."

Marian: need to define what is "rough consensus"

Kenny: there's no clear definition of "rough consensus" in ONAP now, not like in RFC7282 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282); the committee is expected to give suggestions and recommendations to the TSC

Andy: the "suggestions and recommendations" are considered as "rough consensus"

Kenny: according to RFC7282, "rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accomodated"

Marian: how to do when there are some objections?

Andy: it depends on the issue, the modeling subcommittee needs to analyze the issue, and judge by the solutions to see if rough consensus can be reached

Thinh: what rules or govenance process TSC and other subcommittees are using?

Marian: what is the purpose or idea of a poll?

Andy: collect feedback/opinions of the model proposal, and allow people who do not attend the call to express the opinions

Marian: how to interpret the poll result for ASD?

Andy: people explicitly express their opinions, and modeling subcommittee needs to reach rough consensus based on the result

Marian: what if no rough consensus is reached?

Andy: perhaps raise to TSC

Kenny: Everything I can I all just say, "...subcommittee operates on a rough consensus basis. If the subcommittee is unable to reach consensus on what advice to offer, the subcommittee will refer the matter to the TSC"

conclusion #1: agree to refer to RFC7282 for the definition of "rough consensus"

Xu: whether people can agree that we need to update the current process?

Kenny: there's no fundamental errors on the page. may need to highlight the poll is gathering the opinions. the overall opinion is agree to have some updates.

Thinh: think the current statement is fine

Andy: agree to update the process, need to add "escalation to TSC"

Kenny: it wouldn't hurt to add "escalation to TSC", but necessarily needed as it's documented in the charter

0

ETSI CNF support

ONAPMODEL-1: Resource IM of Modeling SubcommitteeOpen

ONAPMODEL-34: Resource DM of Modeling SubcommitteeOpen

@Fernando Oliveira 

R9 DM proposal: https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=16463007

ongoing work on alignment IFA011 v4.3.1

5+

ASD model

ONAPMODEL-1: Resource IM of Modeling SubcommitteeOpen

ONAPMODEL-34: Resource DM of Modeling SubcommitteeOpen

@Marian Darula 

1）Plan for the PoC: Application Package Onboarding to SDC

2）IM: Application Service Descriptor (ASD) onboarding IM

3）DM: Application Service Descriptor (ASD) Resource Data Model

4）ASD in NSD: NSD requirements for ASD deployment

5）Packaging proposal: Application Service Descriptor (ASD) Onboarding Packaging Format

Comments:

• comments on Application Service Descriptor (ASD) onboarding IM

• Comments to ASD proposal

• CNF Taskforce ↔ ETSI collaboration

Marian request to move the model to clean according to Kenny's suggestion.

Kenny: no agreements in TSC, the TSC is basically leaving the decision back to the modeling subcomittee

Thinh: the proposal is approved, the model should be moved to clean, happy to discuss further updates to the model

Xu (as a co-chair): the decision is not to put the proposal into "clean" now, the existing comments need to be discussed and addressed before approval

Workshop with ETSI:

• Thinh: IFA chair is indicating a second workshop to be held, request to be involved if such conversation is going-on

• Kenny: there was a suggestion from Bruno, but no decision

• Xu: sees value for having a second workshop to continue the discussion, but the date has not been agreed

?

Reverse engineering

ONAPMODEL-1: Resource IM of Modeling SubcommitteeOpen

@Jacqueline Beaulac [Ericsson] 

AAI Reverse-engineering -- K8S resource

?

Topology model 

ONAPMODEL-1: Resource IM of Modeling SubcommitteeOpen

Abstract Topology Model

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Proposed+Topology+IM+Sketch 

0

Modeling Documentation

@Xu Yang