Modeling Team, I am concerned that the current wording of the Modeling Sub-committee meeting report is not extremely clear and may be confusing. Please +1 on this [Modeling] email thread if you support the more detailed description of the agreement. It would be good to have a clear statement to present to the TSC.
If you would, please consider updating the wording to be more clear: * Agreement that the VNF Descriptor model for On-Boarding and the Internal ONAP models are distinct. * Acknowledgement that there are two Internal ONAP VNF Descriptor Data Models that will evolve where possible in a coordinated way in support of the Casablanca Use Cases § ONAP R2+ Design-Time Resource DM clean version enhancement for VoLTE, CCVPN, vCPEstretch goal § ONAP SDC TOSCA AID enhancement for vCPE * During the Casablanca cycle, begin a collaborative effort for creating a combined ONAP Internal VNF Descriptor Data Model representation for R4 and beyond (including continued alignment with the VNF Descriptor Information Model) * Engage impacted components for understanding data model impacts, and what is possible in Dublin and beyond (SDC, SO, VFC, A&AI, OOF, CLAMP) * The decision to support a transition to SOL001 as an ONAP on-boarding option is being deferred. Best Regards, Andy Andy Mayer, Ph.D. | PMTS, D2.0 Integration | AT&T Labs | Phone: +1 (732) 420-9945 | am8...@att.com From: Lingli Deng [mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 5:39 AM To: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; denghu...@huawei.com; onap-...@lists.onap.org Cc: MAYER, ANDREW J <am8...@att.com>; 'Andrei Kojukhov' <andrei.kojuk...@amdocs.com> Subject: RE: [onap-discuss] [modeling] new proposal to change TSC report consensus slide wording Hi Hui and all, Please see my comment inline blow highlighted in yellow. Lingli From: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org> <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>> On Behalf Of denghui (L) Sent: 2018年7月19日 11:15 To: onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>; onap-...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-...@lists.onap.org> Cc: MAYER, ANDREW J <am8...@att.com<mailto:am8...@att.com>>; Andrei Kojukhov <andrei.kojuk...@amdocs.com<mailto:andrei.kojuk...@amdocs.com>> Subject: [onap-discuss] [modeling] new proposal to change TSC report consensus slide wording Hello Modelers, I have received comments from Andy and Andrei after the meeting about our consensuses slide, as below, according to their proposal, 3 changes are listed below: 1) Clarify On-Boarding and the Internal ONAP models are distinct [dll] I do not think we have consensus on this. We could even save the translator in SDC if internal model and onboarding model is the same. We don’t have to decide now that these two are distinct. 2) remove “align with R3 IM” [dll] DM align with IM is a basic principle for ONAP modeling practice. And IM has a profound impact to implementation. So I would prefer we keep the statement. 3) removing the statement “(backward compatible with onboarding model) According to our recorded session https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/2018+2H+Modeling+sub-committee+meeting+agenda+and+minutes<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_2018-2B2H-2BModeling-2Bsub-2Dcommittee-2Bmeeting-2Bagenda-2Band-2Bminutes&d=DwMFbw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3UIWLh7P2rAFm1qdZ7jMYQ&m=bB8UhEIC_nzKTMeIrL3UU3vQTY_1gzZKH6pnlCIY7Xk&s=1GLn3jlctxC3DHjMB5cpoiNSdDGLHO7At0lh4wpb90w&e=> I re-listen to the recorded session 20180717, I did ask any objection to the final consensus in the end. only Michela raised the comments to remove 3rd bullet. I did explain the reason, and didn’t hear any objection from Michela any more. In this case, my judge would be from our session 3) is not yet a 100% consensuses assuming Michela not reponse in time, but 1) and 2) are 2 new proposals to change the existing consensus So I am asking the modeling subcommittee here whether you agree to add 1) and remove 2) If there is no any objection before TSC call, I will revise them as this proposal. Thanks a lot DENG Hui From: Andrei Kojukhov [mailto:andrei.kojuk...@amdocs.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 4:10 AM To: MAYER, ANDREW J <am8...@att.com<mailto:am8...@att.com>>; denghui (L) <denghu...@huawei.com<mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>>; Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> Cc: 'eric.deb...@orange.com' <eric.deb...@orange.com<mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>>; Mark Gibson <mar...@amdocs.com<mailto:mar...@amdocs.com>>; 'Mehmet Toy' <mehmet....@verizon.com<mailto:mehmet....@verizon.com>>; 'Alex Vul' <alex....@intel.com<mailto:alex....@intel.com>>; 'Davis, Nigel' <nda...@ciena.com<mailto:nda...@ciena.com>>; 'Ranganathan, Raghu' <rra...@ciena.com<mailto:rra...@ciena.com>>; 'Priya TG' <priy...@netcracker.com<mailto:priy...@netcracker.com>>; WECHSLER, CHESLA C <cw1...@att.com<mailto:cw1...@att.com>>; KATZMAN, ANATOLY <ak4...@intl.att.com<mailto:ak4...@intl.att.com>>; LANDO, MICHAEL <ml6...@intl.att.com<mailto:ml6...@intl.att.com>>; HALLAHAN, RYAN <rh1...@att.com<mailto:rh1...@att.com>>; Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> Subject: RE: Minutes from Today's Meeting Andy, Denghui, Lingli I tend to agree with Andy. What I captured from a meeting screen is quickly adding sentences to a reporting slide by a chair because of lack of time. There is obviously a room for making mistakes and inaccurate wording. BR Andrei From: MAYER, ANDREW J <am8...@att.com<mailto:am8...@att.com>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 10:30 PM To: denghui (L) <denghu...@huawei.com<mailto:denghu...@huawei.com>>; Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> Cc: 'eric.deb...@orange.com' <eric.deb...@orange.com<mailto:eric.deb...@orange.com>>; Andrei Kojukhov <andrei.kojuk...@amdocs.com<mailto:andrei.kojuk...@amdocs.com>>; Mark Gibson <mar...@amdocs.com<mailto:mar...@amdocs.com>>; 'Mehmet Toy' <mehmet....@verizon.com<mailto:mehmet....@verizon.com>>; 'Alex Vul' <alex....@intel.com<mailto:alex....@intel.com>>; 'Davis, Nigel' <nda...@ciena.com<mailto:nda...@ciena.com>>; 'Ranganathan, Raghu' <rra...@ciena.com<mailto:rra...@ciena.com>>; 'Priya TG' <priy...@netcracker.com<mailto:priy...@netcracker.com>>; WECHSLER, CHESLA C <cw1...@att.com<mailto:cw1...@att.com>>; KATZMAN, ANATOLY <ak4...@intl.att.com<mailto:ak4...@intl.att.com>>; LANDO, MICHAEL <ml6...@intl.att.com<mailto:ml6...@intl.att.com>>; HALLAHAN, RYAN <rh1...@att.com<mailto:rh1...@att.com>>; Lingli Deng <denglin...@chinamobile.com<mailto:denglin...@chinamobile.com>> Subject: RE: Minutes from Today's Meeting Denghui, We appreciate that you captured some of the major points that were agreed to during the Modeling Sub-committee call. We do have a few questions that need clarification on the TSC readout: * How was the agreement captured that the VNF Descriptor model for On-Boarding and the Internal ONAP models are distinct? We reached consensus on this point multiple times during the Modeling Sub-committee call, but it is not listed. Please reflect this important point. * During the call there did not seem to be clear consensus with the statement “align with R3 IM”. Based on the recording we all agreed that we need keep the Information Modeling and Data Modeling aligned during the collaborative work on the internal data model for R4 and beyond. However, since it was not a clear agreement, please remove “align with R3 IM” * Please consider removing the statement “(backward compatible with onboarding model)”. Based on the recording, it wasn’t clear during the call that we had community consensus on this particular statement. Best Regards, Andy Andy Mayer, Ph.D. | PMTS, D2.0 Integration | AT&T Labs | Phone: +1 (732) 420-9945 | am8...@att.com<mailto:am8...@att.com> From: denghui (L) Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2018 11:16 AM To: 'onap-discuss@lists.onap.org' <onap-discuss@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-discuss@lists.onap.org>>; 'onap-...@lists.onap.org' <onap-...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-...@lists.onap.org>> Subject: [modeling] Meeting minutes, slides and video recorded available for modeling subcommittee call yesterday Hello all Please kindly help to review yesterday meeting minutes, slides, and video recorded as below link: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/2018+2H+Modeling+sub-committee+meeting+agenda+and+minutes<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_2018-2B2H-2BModeling-2Bsub-2Dcommittee-2Bmeeting-2Bagenda-2Band-2Bminutes&d=DwMFbw&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3UIWLh7P2rAFm1qdZ7jMYQ&m=bB8UhEIC_nzKTMeIrL3UU3vQTY_1gzZKH6pnlCIY7Xk&s=1GLn3jlctxC3DHjMB5cpoiNSdDGLHO7At0lh4wpb90w&e=> thanks a lot for your checking Best regards DENG Hui -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#11267): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/11267 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/23709805/21656 Group Owner: onap-discuss+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
