Hi Stavros, For the attachmentPoint item, I have closed https://jira.onap.org/browse/AAI-2151 as "Won't Do", since it now uses all pre-existing schema and EdgeRules.
Regarding https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/AAI-BBS+Proposals+for+Dublin+Release#AAI-BBSProposalsforDublinRelease-Item6.Specificdecisionsmadeforeachattribute The decisions look conclusive, implementation looks feasible and straightforward, i.e. - Add EdgeRules to support the metadata in the relationship-list - Use pre-existing attributes mapped to use case - Use pre-existing EdgeRules to bridge logical-link to pnf in relationship-list Regarding the Metadatum schema element, the metaname and metaval are simply "data" as far as AAI is concerned, I believe you may freely choose the arbitrary string values as you see fit. I do not think that such "data" requires any kind of approvals from AAI team. However, you may need to co-ordinate with other ONAP projects that might also make use of the metadata on that same service-instance (see below for a nodes query you can use to test). Correct that the metaname is also the unique key, so it is mandatory and must be unique. As the unique key, the metaname forms part of the URL path to the object (see example below). You will want to choose names that make convenient and memorable URLs. I would suggest sticking to the "unreserved characters" as per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-2.3 See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent-encoding See below for the test I constructed: GET /aai/v14/business/customers/customer/customer-test-4?depth=5 { "global-customer-id": "customer-test-4", "subscriber-name": "subscriber-test-4", "subscriber-type": "CUST", "resource-version": "1550796770192", "service-subscriptions": { "service-subscription": [ { "service-type": "servicetype-test-4", "resource-version": "1550796770893", "service-instances": { "service-instance": [ { "service-instance-id": "serviceinstance-test-4", "resource-version": "1550796771292", "metadata": { "metadatum": [ { "metaname": "metadatum-test-4", "metaval": "metaval-test-4", "resource-version": "1550796771700" }, { "metaname": "metadatum-test-5", "metaval": "metaval-test-5", "resource-version": "1550796772535" } ] } }, { "service-instance-id": "serviceinstance-test-4b", "resource-version": "1550796772948", "metadata": { "metadatum": [ { "metaname": "metadatum-test-4", "metaval": "metaval-test-4b", "resource-version": "1550796773369" }, { "metaname": "metadatum-test-5", "metaval": "metaval-test-5b", "resource-version": "1550796774217" } ] } } ] } } ] } } GET /aai/v14/business/customers/customer/customer-test-4/service-subscriptions/service-subscription/servicetype-test-4/service-instances/service-instance/serviceinstance-test-4/metadata { "metadatum": [ { "metaname": "metadatum-test-4", "metaval": "metaval-test-4", "resource-version": "1550796771700" } ] } GET /aai/v14/nodes/metadata?depth=5 { "metadatum": [ { "metaname": "metadatum-test-5", "metaval": "metaval-test-5b", "resource-version": "1550797232334" }, { "metaname": "metadatum-test-5", "metaval": "metaval-test-5", "resource-version": "1550797230565" }, { "metaname": "metadatum-test-4", "metaval": "metaval-test-4b", "resource-version": "1550797231463" }, { "metaname": "metadatum-test-4", "metaval": "metaval-test-4", "resource-version": "1550797229715" } ] } Keong From: Kanarakis, Stavros (Nokia - GR/Athens) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 22 February 2019 01:36 To: Keong Lim <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: A&AI item #6 Hi Keong, I have updated the table for BBS properties. I removed the question marks, so everything now is complete. Also, I documented the agreement for attachment point. We discard the new PNF property option. Instead, we will create a new logical-link object and bridge it to the PNF that represents the ONT/CPE. In this logical-link object, we will record the attachment point as a string in its link-name property. Can you please review the final form of this table? One question now is how do we define the metanames for all the metadata properties. I understand that metanames are quite important because they will be part of the URL assigned in the related-link property of the relationship-entry, isn't it? Do we have the freedom to assign our own metanames at our will (all BBS implementation parts must follow these names of course) or they should somehow be coordinated with A&AI team? Best Regards Stavros -------------------------------------------------------- Kanarakis Stavros R&D Software Engineer E-mail : [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cell Phone : +30 6985 16 26 25 My NokiaEDU Achievements<http://nok.it/k6mUjn> BBA E2E SDAN @Athens Fixed Networks NOKIA -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#15683): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/message/15683 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/29992902/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-discuss/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
