Hello, Jessie,
About for the #3, I agree with Xu39s suggestion. I think Sapd, Vnffgd and etc. should keep, and add the referenced classes in the model. And for the papyrus diagram, there should add corresponding empty classes and their associations. Best Regards, Chuyi. ----邮件原文----发件人:jessie jewitt <jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com>收件人:onap-discuss <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>,"郭楚怡" <guoch...@chinamobile.com>抄 送: "yangxu (H)" <yang...@huawei.com>,denglingli <denglin...@chinamobile.com>,"zhang.maopeng1" <zhang.maope...@zte.com.cn>,"zhan.jie1" <zhan.j...@zte.com.cn>发送时间:2018-08-23 01:31:53主题:Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Network Service Descriptor modelHi Chuyi- Yes, it39s my fault for not having reviewed this model when it was originally proposed. What I would like to see for Casablanca is that we at least "fix" it by doing the following: 1. Use a "pared down" version of the Papyrus NSD model that corresponds to what was agreed, so we can output it from there on "clean", using the correct associated class diagram. 2. Create the correct classes, and references to other classes and datatypes that are already in the model (i.e. ConnectivityType is in our common model) 3. Suppress the references (and associations) that are not desired (meaning there is no associated class in the model, i.e. Sapd, Vnffgd) You say they haven39t been discussed yet, so I39m curious how the model was approved for R2? If you prefer to keep these references, then we need to include the associated classes that are referenced in the model. 4. I39m still not seeing a reference to VnfExtCp. Who is referencing that and where? I can prepare a new discussion wiki with what I39m proposing for next Monday39s RM call. However, I would need an answer to #3 above. Do you want to remove the references to classes that aren39t in your model, or do you want to add the classes that are referenced. It would not be a good thing to reference them, without defining them, which is currently the case in the model. -Jessie On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:38 PM, Chuyi Guo <guoch...@chinamobile.com> wrote: Hello, Jessie, The Network Service model corresponds to the link is not only NSD, it includes different classes, and has been discussed and voted in Service IM call, I39m sorry you didn39t catch the call. The current NS model is coordinated with the requirements of VF-C, not simply copy the ETSI specifications. Since the scope of development plan for C-release has been settled, other specific requirements should be proposed and discussed in the later releases. As for the issues you mentioned, I think you are right about the NsVirtualLink, the type of VirtualLinkDesc is NsVirtualLinkDesc. For 4 and 5, the details of Sapd, Vnffgd and etc., haven39t been discussed yet, so is for VnfExtCp. From my understanding, ConnectivityType should be in the NsVirtualLinkDesc, which hasn39t been put in the papyrus class diagram , I think it is the point where should update. BR, Chuyi. ----邮件原文----发件人:Jessie Jewitt <jessie.jew...@oamtechnologies.com>收件人:"yangxu (H)" <yang...@huawei.com>抄 送: "onap-discuss@lists.onap.org" <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>发送时间:2018-08-21 00:41:12主题:Re: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Network Service Descriptor model Hi Xu- The link you refer to in your email to Network Service (which I assume is Descriptor) is not a model that is acceptable to me. I certainly don39t remember voting on this in R2. Here are some of the reasons I personally cannot accept it: 1. There is no class diagram showing the relationships between entities, so I don39t really know what concepts you are trying to model. 2. The relationship that should exist is between NSD and VirtualLinkDesc, and not NsVirtualLink. The attribute in NSD called virtualLinkDesc (which should be the endpoint of the association) is of type string. That is incorrect. 3. I believe you mean NsVirtualLink to VirtualLinkDesc, as the first attribute is virtualLinkDescId. 4. Many of the attributes in NSD refer to types that are not defined in the model (Sapd, Vnffgd, NsDf...) 5. Same comment above regarding NsVirtualLink. It contains types that are not in your model, like SecurityParameters 6. ConnectivityType, as a datatype, has been moved to our Common model, which we will need to define as part of our final resource IM in clean, and not a NSD model. The benefit of putting datatypes like these in "Common" is that we define them once, and then reference them from multiple models, like Resource (where NSD lives) and VNF. 7. There is nothing in the model that refers to a VnfExtCp and its relationship to NSD. These are just some of the issues. I believe a better approach is to take the NSD model defined that is based on ETSI (that addresses the above issues) and pare it down to something equivalent, if you want. I39d be happy to update the NSD model to show what it would look like. -Jessie On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:35 AM, yangxu (H) <yang...@huawei.com> wrote: Hi All, Thank you for joining today’s resource IM call and having the meaningful discussion. My apologize for not allocating much time reviewing the NSD model, as M3 is approaching, I think we need to trigger offline discussion to help accelerate the progress. The main issue I see for the NSD model is the scope for R3 documentation. The current proposal from Jessie is based on IFA014 spec, while the model agreed in R2 (https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/NetworkService) is only subset of the spec. And whether we need to include PNFD model as part of the NSD model (like ETSI does), and how we document the PNFD model in R3 remains a question. My suggestion is we keep aligned with the previous agreement and implementation in R3. Which means we only document the trimmed NSD in R3 and try to capture the PNFD model which would be implemented by the SDC team. Please share your opinions on this issue and let’s try to finalize the clean model before the deadline, thanks. Best regards, Xu From: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Jessie Jewitt Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 3:09 AM To: onap-discuss <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org> Subject: [onap-discuss] [modeling] Network Service Descriptor model Please review and provide comments by 8/13 (on the wiki) for the proposed Network Service Descriptor model. It was aligned with ETSI IFA014 v2.4.4. Thanks, Jessie -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#12029): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/12029 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/24212025/21656 Group Owner: onap-discuss+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-