Hi Andy, TSC, All, I think that there are clarifications required on this before it can move forward as there are few things that I think we need to have this sorted.
* In archcom on 2019-10-08, the following was presented: https://wiki.onap.org/download/attachments/50202249/ONAP%20and%20xNF%20license%20mgmt%20-%20ArchCom%202019-10-08.pptx?api=v2 . * The conclusion was "Archcom recommends the following principle: "xNF capacity and feature license management is outside of the scope of the ONAP functionality." for now. * Need to show the interactions with the licence server in the flows." * Then in modcom 2019-10-22 this was also discussed and I listened to the recording and I understood that the archcom decision was recognised and that a few representatives from ModCom were on that call. * I hear in that recording that there were questions about whether this was the ArchCom recommendation, and this was questioned as there wasn't a vote or poll. ArchCom has been driven by consensus driven discussions and I asked several times whether there was objections to the statements above, and there were not so that is the archcom recommendation * There was a discussion about then why is there a use case. The use case, as you probably know, is to show how the interaction with the licence manager (outside of onap) can work when the number of instances is not licence controlled. * I find it strange to hear a discussion that is "I was in that discussion, I didn't say anything but I don't necessarily agree" and then go ahead and propose what appears to be recommendations in a different direction without coming back to where the original recommendation was mode. It should be noted that the vendors proposing this have done so openly in the usecase subcommittee and in archcom. * I am unsure whether the intention to approve this model is to state that this is the only way that xnfs can be licenced. I don't want to go into the pros and cons of different licence approaches (as I am not an expert in that), but I do want to state that we can't have ONAP being a limit to the different licencing approaches. Can you clarify whether the approval of this model is against the recommendation made in Archcom? Then I have been of the understanding that the modelling to be approved was addressing the needs of the functional, non-functional and use case requirements, which is why the model approval was wanted before a certain time. I was un-clear on which use case this particular model was addressing? I was unclear on how it actually addresses the use cases that are in the scope of the frankfurt release. If there are principle approaches here, then I think they need to be raised upto the TSC. I would suggest a clarification to the TSC on the above. Best Regards, Steve From: onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org <onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org> On Behalf Of Andy Mayer via Lists.Onap.Org Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2019 16:10 To: onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org Subject: Re: [onap-modelingsub] Email Poll on As Built License Management Information Model POLLING DEADLINE EXTENDED The polling period will be open until 22:00GMT on 19 December. 2019. We will address rough consensus during the 13 January 2020 Modeling Subcommittee weekly call. Best Regards, Andy and DENG Hui From: onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org> <onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org>> On Behalf Of MAYER, ANDREW J Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 12:00 PM To: onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-modeling...@lists.onap.org> Subject: [onap-modelingsub] Email Poll on As Built License Management Information Model ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T *** Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information. Dear Modeling Subcommittee Members: According to last week's modeling call, the Modeling Subcommittee has initiated a poll to determine whether the modeling of the "as built" ONAP "License Management Information Model" is ready to be moved to the "Clean" state. The related wiki pages can be found at: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/License+Management<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.onap.org_display_DW_License-2BManagement&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=3UIWLh7P2rAFm1qdZ7jMYQ&m=URzZhaQ-FklHIOChv4g87HDlL5DPRDFfsKaeHtt1BV0&s=TX9hwjw0q-Ks4OGdlyyr8r8aFnA0oR4dQ07ZaV4TEiU&e=> Please submit only 1 vote per company to this email list. The polling period will be open until 22:00GMT on 12 19 December. 2019. We will address rough consensus during the 17 December 2019 13 January 2020 Modeling Subcommittee weekly call. The chairs strongly recommend that clear rationale be expressed along with any "No" vote. To vote: Please reply to this email (to onap-modelingsub@lists-onap-org) with: "YES"; "NO"; or "Abstain" to indicate: YES: The proposed model IS ready to move to the "Clean" State NO: The proposed model IS NOT ready to move to the "Clean" State Abstain: No opinion on this topic (Please only vote once per company) Thanks Andy & DENG Hui -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#5774): https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/5774 Mute This Topic: https://lists.onap.org/mt/68267427/21656 Group Owner: onap-tsc+ow...@lists.onap.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/leave/2743226/1412191262/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
