Hi, In the context of Beijing release, it could be good to have some more inputs about possible ONAP IM and ONAP TOSCA DM impacts/expectations in relation to the new functional requirements:
1. HPA: discussions progressed, analysis is ongoing 2. Change Management: no input 3. Scaling: no input 4. PNF: no input Can we add this point in agenda for the next modeling subcommittee meeting and ensure inputs from use case committee or from different reference functional requirement area ? BR Michela From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of denghui (L) Sent: den 14 februari 2018 04:46 To: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; onap-...@lists.onap.org P <onap-...@lists.onap.org> Subject: [onap-tsc] [modeling] 20180213 modeling subcommittee Meeting Minutes Hello all Modeling subcommittee has been questioned when will our modeling DM spec come out, below are our meeting minutes this week. Hi Kenny, We are going to cancel next week modeling subcommittee call due to china new year, thanks a lot for your help ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20180213 modeling subcommittee Meeting agenda and Minutes https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Modeling+sub-committee+meetings 1) Resource IM YANG Xu there is no consensus whether we need to follow ETSI NFV naming convention or change into ONAP naming. Two polls will be set to decide the naming convention and future meeting time. The polls close on Feb 28th. https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Meeting+Time+Poll https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Naming+Convention+Poll 2) Data modeling Anatoly Katzman DENG Hui: modeling subcommittee have to finalize the 1st draft version by M3 deadline, in this case, we need to allow solutions only 1 week, and make the decision on Feb. 28th. DENG Hui: there are two solutions on the table now: Monolithic VDU design and TOSCA NFV profile, we are not make decision today, but would get basic impress what company would like to follow: Vendors: 1) Ericsson vote for of ETSI NFV Profile 2) ZTE vote for ETSI SOL NFV profile 3) Huawei vote for ETSI NFV profile 4) Nokia --no one on call 5) Netcracker (Priya TG) vote for ETSI NFV Profile Operators: 1) AT&T: Monolithic VDU 2) China Mobile: lacking information to do an informed comparison hence no strong opinion to any specific proposal currently. The options on the table should firstly meet the requirement as a unified DM in the community with consistency to the IM and implementable in Beijing release cadence with vendors support. It would be better if we could align with SDO in the same time. Next step: a) check whether we have 3rd solution or not in a week b) make decision on Feb.27th 3) Modeling tool poll(Jessie) 1) use github for papyrus revision fine from IM's team (Kevin, Andy, Lingli, and YANG Xu) Anyway, polling will end by the end of Feb. Best regards, DENG Hui
_______________________________________________ onap-discuss mailing list onap-discuss@lists.onap.org https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-discuss
