ONAP R4 Modeling High Level Requirements
- Kevin Scaggs
- Hui Deng
- Anatoly Katzman
Based on timeplan of modeling subcommittee, high level requirements need to be finished by M0/M1,
Below High Level Requirements have been agreed by modeling subcommitee with code commitment promise to Dublin release, modeling subcommittee request related to projects to approve those related submission.
Modeling Domain | Modeling Requirement | Modeling Requirement Description | Impacted Projects | Use Case Relevance | Modeling Spec Commitment | Code Commitment | Provider Priority | Mapping to M1 requirement | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resource DM | ETSI NFV SOL001 v2.5.1 | VNFD - the ONAP internal data model should be able to reflect ETSI SOL001 VNFDs provided for onboarding | SDC, VFC | CCVPN, vCPE | @Former user (Deleted) | @Isaac Raj | @Former user (Deleted) | ||
Resource DM | ETSI NFV SOL001 v2.5.1 | PNFD - the ONAP internal data model (AID)should be able to reflect ETSI SOL001 PNFDs provided for onboarding. (committed goal) '''''''''''''''' Could an Onboarded PNFD also be internally mapped to the second ONAP internal model (nfv tosca types) ? Could two internal descriptors coexist in the same internal SDC package ? (stretch goal) | SDC | Ericsson | @Fei Zhang (Ericsson) @Michela Bevilacqua | Ericsson. Part of 5G UC Onboarding UC in Dublin. | @Michela Bevilacqua |
There are other 4 categories of high level requirement,
1) Will be documented only and included in the Dublin release, but no implementation promised.
2) Documentation after implemented, or implemented but not in the release
3) Lower Priority
4) Experimental
The first category is that those requirement will be documented only in Dublin release
the second category will document the current implementation in those projects.
Other two categories like lower priority and experimental will not be included in the release 3, the contributor will work with best effort to influence future release.
Owners of each requirement needs to coordinate the modeling spec commitment and code commitment with PTLs of impacted project.
1) Will be documented only and included in the Dublin release
Modeling Domain | Modeling Requirement | Modeling Requirement Description | Impacted Projects | Use Case Relevance | Modeling Spec Commitment | Code Commitment | Provider Priority | Mapping to M1 requirement | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resource and Service DM | TOSCA 1.2 | ONAP onboarding data model (TOSCA) and internal data model should be based on OASIS TOSCA 1.2 core syntax and normative types | SDC, SO, VFC | ?? | |||||
Resource IM | ETSI NFV IFA011 v2.5.1 | Update the VNFD IM to align with IFA011 v2.5.1 | SDC, VFC | @Former user (Deleted) | N/A related to DM SOL001 progress | @Former user (Deleted) | |||
Resource IM | PNFD | Create onboarding PNFD IM | SDC, SO, VFC | @Former user (Deleted) @Benjamin Cheung | N/A | @Former user (Deleted) | |||
Resource IM | VNFD | New requirement for the VNFD @guochuyi @Xu Yang - can you please elaborate? | SDC, VFC | VoLTE | @guochuyi | @lishitao impact R4 DM? | @guochuyi | ||
Service DM | ETSI NFV SOL001 v2.5.1 | NSD - the ONAP internal data model should be able to reflect ETSI SOL001 NSD provided for onboarding | SDC, SO, VFC | CCVPN | @Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed) | @Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed) | |||
Service IM | ETSI NFV IFA014 v2.5.1 | Nested Service | SDC, SO, VFC | CCVPN | @guochuyi | TBA | High |
| @guochuyi |
2) Documentation after implemented, or implemented but not in the release
Modeling Domain | Modeling Requirement | Modeling Requirement Description | Impacted Projects | Use Case Relevance | Modeling Spec Commitment | Code Commitment | Provider Priority | Mapping to M1 requirement | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Service
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Onboarding NS IM | To document the onboarding NS IM as supported by the usecase |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
Resource | allotted resource | To document the allotted resource IM as implemented by SDC | N/A | @Kevin Scaggs | N/A |
| @Kevin Scaggs | ||
|
|
| |||||||
Below tables are not downgrade, but casablanca won't make it
3) Lower Priority:
Modeling Domain | Modeling Requirement | Modeling Requirement Description | Impacted Projects | Use Case Relevance | Modeling Spec Commitment | Code Commitment | Provider Priority | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Service |
| |||||||
|
| |||||||
Common
| Policy | create policy IM, reflect current policy project implementation | Policy | @Kevin Scaggs | N/A | @Kevin Scaggs | ||
VES | create VES IM | DCAE | @Kevin Scaggs | N/A | @Kevin Scaggs | |||
Infrastructure | ||||||||
4) Experimental:
Modeling Domain | Modeling Requirement | Modeling Requirement Description | Impacted Projects | Use Case Relevance | Modeling Spec Commitment | Code Commitment | Provider Priority | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Common | License | create license IM | @Kevin Scaggs | @Kevin Scaggs | ||||
Root | create super classes for current models | SDC, AAI | @Kevin Scaggs @Chesla Wechsler | @Kevin Scaggs |
Per discussion in Paris, requirements can be based on:
Release / project specific needs
Recognized 'future' needs
Documenting existing models
Some concepts may be complex enough, if we wait for the release / project requirement, we will be too late to properly develop the concept.