[onap-tsc] Network Function Change Management Project Proposal

[SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)]

During the F2F meeting we discussed a project proposal on the topic. As this 
addresses workflows across components rather then build a component the 
question came up what form this should take. 4 options are proposed

1. Make it a project and add a clear deliverable (e.g. Documentation) to the 
project proposal.
2. Make this work part of the architecture subcommittee.
3. Have a coordinator on this
4. Make this a use case for r2

In my mind I don't like #2. as it removes the clear focus of this work.

The suggestion was made to ask the TSC on the mailing list for opinions.

So please advice.

Oliver
___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Final Preparation For ONAP Project Creation Reviews For June 8th and 9th

[Kenny Paul]

Yes, I will get these posted on Friday.

Best Regards, 
-kenny

Kenny Paul,  Technical Program Manager
kp...@linuxfoundation.org
510.766.5945

> On Jun 8, 2017, at 6:18 AM, PLATANIA, MARCO (MARCO) 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Kenny.
>  
> Could you please share the link when ready?
>  
> Thanks,
> Marco
>  
> From: Kenny Paul  >
> Date: Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 5:38 AM
> To: "PLATANIA, MARCO (MARCO)"  >
> Cc: Phil Robb >, 
> onap-tsc >, 
> "onap-disc...@lists.onap.org " 
> >
> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Final Preparation For ONAP Project Creation Reviews 
> For June 8th and 9th
>  
> Hello Marco, 
>  
> We are recording audio which will be posted, with the caveat that there have 
> been a number of sound quality issues with today’s session.
>  
> Best Regards, 
> -kenny
> 
> Kenny Paul,  Technical Program Manager
> kp...@linuxfoundation.org 
> 510.766.5945
>  
>> On Jun 7, 2017, at 5:12 PM, PLATANIA, MARCO (MARCO) 
>> > wrote:
>>  
>> Phil,
>>  
>> Will the video recordings of the F2F sessions (especially those on the 
>> proposed projects) available to those that cannot attend in person?
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Marco
>>  
>> From: > > on behalf of Phil Robb 
>> >
>> Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 1:34 AM
>> To: onap-tsc >, 
>> "onap-disc...@lists.onap.org " 
>> >
>> Subject: [onap-tsc] Final Preparation For ONAP Project Creation Reviews For 
>> June 8th and 9th
>>  
>> Hello ONAP Developer Community:
>>  
>> I am looking very forward to seeing many of you tomorrow at our second Face 
>> to Face meeting hosted by China Mobile in Beijing.
>>  
>> We will be attempting to get through as many Project Creation Reviews as 
>> possible during this two day event.  Given that we have around 30 project 
>> proposals and only about 6.5 hours allotted for the reviews we are going to 
>> need to be very efficient with our time.
>>  
>> We have created a wiki page to break-down the Creation Review time slots 
>> into 15 minute intervals.  It is located 
>> here:https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6590432 
>> 
>>  
>> If you are a "Project Contact" for an ONAP project, and you want your 
>> project to be reviewed during Face to Face meeting, please find an empty 
>> time slot on that wiki page and enter your information there.
>> ** Please remember to have reviewed the "Initial Project Proposal Feedback 
>> From The TSC" page and ensure that the questions/comments raised there have 
>> been addressed in your project proposal.
>> https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Initial+Project+Proposal+Feedback+From+the+TSC
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> For ONAP TSC members, please re-review both the Project Feedback page, and 
>> the Project Proposal page for each project to be reviewed in preparation of 
>> the Creation Reviews. 
>>  
>> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>>  
>> Best,.
>>  
>> Phil.
>> -- 
>> Phil Robb
>> Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
>> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
>> (O) 970-229-5949
>> (M) 970-420-4292
>> Skype: Phil.Robb
>> ___
>> ONAP-TSC mailing list
>> ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org 
>> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc 
>> 
>  

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc

Re: [onap-tsc] Comments about Holmes

[John Strassner]

Hi Guangrong,

I have some comments on your reply: please see ... Also, please
look at the Holmes project page for additional comments from me.

regards,
John

For the overlap, I have to clarify again that although Holmes and Policy
are both based on Drools, the goal of them is totally different.

Policy SHOULD be able to accommodate different programming paradigms.
DROOLS is great for production rule systems, but many examples are not
appropriate for that type of policy. I don't think we should limit policy
to DROOLS.


Holmes is targeted to find out the correlation among tens of thousands
(even more) of alarms while Policy is aimed to which action should be taken
to accomplish auto-scaling/auto-healing tasks.

Holmes sounds like a CEP module, which I think is needed.
I disagree that Policy is aimed to a single action, and also disagree that
it is limited to auto-scaling and -healing.
Policy is about decision-making.

My underlying concern is:  Does Holmes define its own policy? Or does it
reference Policies from other projects? Please clarify.



I think systems should be defined by what their functions rather than the
technologies they adopt.

Agreed!


Besides, to make our systems easier to maintain, we have to hold on to the
Single Responsibility Principle.

This has nothing to do with the Single Responsibility Principle.
That being said, I repeat my question: is Holmes trying to define a new
type of Policy?
   IF YES, then I'd like to know why.
   IF NO, then Holmes should more clearly state its focus (e.g., why is it
MORE than a CEP module).


If we merge Holmes with Policy, the logic of the policy rules will get much
more complicated, which makes it rather hard to trace or fix the
problem/bug if any occurs in the futher.

I don't see why the logic gets more complex. That's what the CEP module
does. Please explain.


On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:29 AM,  wrote:

> Thanks for your comments. This will be discussed and decided at the TSC.
> Best regard. Roberto
>
>
>
> *De :* fu.guangr...@zte.com.cn [mailto:fu.guangr...@zte.com.cn]
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 7 juin 2017 16:42
> *À :* KUNG Roberto OLN/QOP
> *Cc :* t...@lists.onap.org
> *Objet :* 答复: Comments about Holmes
>
>
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your information.
>
>
>
> For the overlap, I have to clarify again that although Holmes and Policy
> are both based on Drools, the goal of them is totally different. Holmes is
> targeted to find out the correlation among tens of thousands (even more) of
> alarms while Policy is aimed to which action should be taken to accomplish
> auto-scaling/auto-healing tasks. I think systems should be defined by what
> their functions rather than the technologies they adopt.
>
>
>
> Besides, to make our systems easier to maintain, we have to hold on to the
> Single Responsibility Principle. If we merge Holmes with Policy, the logic
> of the policy rules will get much more complicated, which makes it rather
> hard to trace or fix the problem/bug if any occurs in the futher.
>
>
>
> For the reasons above, I still suggest we make Holmes an independent
> project in ONAP.
>
>
>
> Guangrong
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 原始邮件
>
> *发件人：* ＜roberto.k...@orange.com＞;
>
> *收件人：*付光荣10144542;
>
> *抄送人：* ＜t...@lists.onap.org＞;
>
> *日 **期 **：*2017年06月07日 04:17
>
> *主 **题 **：Comments about Holmes*
>
>
>
>
> *https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Initial+Project+Proposal+Feedback+From+the+TSC*
> .
> I have seen that you have taken into account our feedback.  I have provided
> a summary below.
>
>
>
> · Clarity: Project description and scope are clear.
>
> · Overlap: It is felt that the project should be split and
> combine with DCAE (for the correlation engine), Policy engine (for Drools),
> and CLAMP (for designing the open loop).
>
> · Risk management: this addition to other projects should be
> discussed with other projects with the objective to add mature/production
> level code in R1, or could be targeted to subsequent  Rs if delivery may be
> felt difficult
>
> · Relevance and prioritization: this is relevant to the ONAP
> release.
>
>
>
> I hope this will help with your preparations for next week’s meeting.
>
>
>
> Roberto
>
> _
>   Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, 
> exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par 
> erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les 
> pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, 
> Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
> falsifie. Merci.  This message and its attachments may contain confidential 
> or privileged information that may be 

Re: [onap-tsc] Fw: RE: RE: Re: [onap-discuss] Project Proposal: External System Register

[Colin Burns]

Many thanks Lizi,
I just wanted to clarify one point – in the meeting, we didn’t finalize that 
ESR would be positioned as a sub-project of A
This decision can be made once we have the clarification around the difference 
between sub-project and standalone project.
Other than that, I agree with your summary and thank you for the constructive 
meeting!

Hope that’s ok.
Colin


From: li.z...@zte.com.cn [mailto:li.z...@zte.com.cn]
Sent: 08 June 2017 15:42
To: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Cc: amani...@att.com; jf2...@att.com; Colin Burns 
Subject: 答复: [onap-tsc] Fw: RE: RE: Re: [onap-discuss] Project Proposal: 
External System Register


Dear TSC,

We took the action from today's project review feedback of ESR proposal. After 
discussion with A team, we have reached consensus about the scope of the ESR 
and its relationship with A A team will add ESR as a sub-project in 
tomorrow's A project proposal.

One comment from A team is that is there a clear definition of sub-project 
and what's the management model for sub-project, I think TSC can clarify that 
part in tomorrow's meeting.



Thanks,

Lizi
原始邮件
发件人：李滋00164331
收件人： ＜onap-tsc@lists.onap.org＞;
日 期 ：2017年06月06日 10:02
主 题 ：[onap-tsc] Fw: RE: RE: Re: [onap-discuss] Project Proposal: External 
System Register



Hi guys,



I would like to know anybody from A could give me a feedback for pre-email. 
Since the June developers event is drawing near and the limited time, i think 
it would be better for us to reach a consensus about consolidating ESR and A 
before the meeting.



Thanks a lot.

Lizi














发件人：李滋00164331
收件人： ＜amani...@att.com＞;
抄送人： ＜colin.bu...@amdocs.com＞;赵化冰10201488;孟照星10024238; ＜jf2...@att.com＞;
日 期 ：2017年06月02日 15:22
主 题 ：答复: RE: Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Project Proposal: External System 
Register





Hi Jimmy and Manisha,



According to the suggestion of Mazin and community,  there are certain levels 
of repetition of technology and algorithms between ESR and A Just as I have 
mentioned in my last letter, ESR also provides the function of health cheack of 
external system and a management portal which are beyond the scope of A I 
have clarified the scope of ESR according to the comment of ONAP community. For 
more detail, please view 
https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=5734948 .

After the discussion of our team, we have two suggestion about how to 
consolidate ESR and A



Method1: to merge ESR with A

We move the requirements from ESR into A Add our team members to A 
as committers/contributors. We contribute codes to A repository, including 
the function "Register/query/update/delete function of external systems", 
"Provide a portal to manage the external systems" and "check whether the 
external systems are reachable".



Method2: put ESR as a subproject under A umbrella

 We move the ESR subproject proposal under A



What do you think about these two approaches?  Please let me know your 
preference.



Thanks,

LiZi










发件人： ＜amani...@att.com＞;
收件人：李滋00164331; ＜colin.bu...@amdocs.com＞;
抄送人：赵化冰10201488;孟照星10024238; ＜jf2...@att.com＞;
日 期 ：2017年05月31日 11:40
主 题 ：RE: Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Project Proposal:ExternalSystemRegister


+Jimmy

Hi Li Zi,

Thank you for your email. We will review the ESR project and then follow-up 
with you to discuss this further.

Thanks,
Manisha

From:  li.z...@zte.com.cn [mailto:li.z...@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 3:26 AM
To: AGGARWAL, MANISHA ＜amani...@att.com＞; 
colin.bu...@amdocs.com
Cc: zhao.huab...@zte.com.cn; 
meng.zhaoxi...@zte.com.cn
Subject: Re: Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Project Proposal: 
ExternalSystemRegister


Hi Manisha and Colin,



I post a proposal about External System Register in ONAP several days ago. The 
project scope and description can be found in this wiki page 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/External+System+Register.
   The feedback from the community suggests that there are certain levels of 
repetition of technology and algorithms between ESR and A  While we agree 
with that, we also think there're also some area A  haven't covered in its 
scope such as the registration and health check of external system, the model 
definition of VNFM and EMS.



That's why I'm reaching out today.  I would like to discuss the overlapping 
scope and the potential of cooperation between ESR and A



What do you think?



Regards,

LiZi






原始邮件
发件人：李滋00164331
收件人： ＜ma...@research.att.com＞;
抄送人： ＜avi.chap...@amdocs.com＞; ＜onap-disc...@lists.onap.org＞; 
＜onap-tsc@lists.onap.org＞;
日 期 ：2017年05月19日  15:06
主 题 ：答复: Re: [onap-tsc] [onap-discuss] Project 

Re: [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals

[Zhou, Danny]

Before we answer the questions who is going to support the open source VNFs, we 
might need to figure out whether those VNFs can really support a complete vCPE 
use case. For vDHCP, vDNS and vAAT which have relatively simple and fixed 
simple functionalities, it is easy to package them as VNFs or containerized 
VNFs, but for the vBRG, vBNG, vGW there are lots of complicated 
features/functionalities are involved which need the vCPE use case to 
specifically list the required features in first release then volunteers could 
figure out the technical gaps of existing open source VNFs and then provide 
meaningful estimation about how much additional development work as well as 
integration work needed.

From: ROSE, DANIEL V [mailto:dr6...@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 1, 2017 10:35 PM
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L ; SPATSCHECK, OLIVER 
; Zhou, Danny 
Cc: onap-discuss ; onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals

Viability to even be included is certainly an important point.

But I think oliver’s point is there is always some work to get a vnf to be onap 
ready, and then some more work to configure it to work in our use case. Someone 
in the ONAP project has to take ownership and agree to either do that work, or 
find someone (possibly the projects actual contributors) to do that work.  This 
is analogous to a vendor who agrees to support their vnf in the use cases we 
use them for.

Thanks,
Daniel Rose
ECOMP / ONAP
com.att.ecomp
732-420-7308

From: 
onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-discuss-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:31 AM
To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER 
>; Zhou, Danny 
>
Cc: onap-discuss 
>; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-discuss] [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals

***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.
Having support info in the table of open source VNFs, as well as notes on 
functional limitations / fitness for a particular purpose, and some consensus 
assessment [limited, viable] or status [experimental, lab-ready, deployed] that 
can change over time, would be useful. There are various types/levels of 
purpose here, and for the community’s need, functionally complete / 
production-ready open source VNFs while clearly a desired goal, are a 
would-be-nice.

Viability would include the level of community support for maintaining or 
further developing the VNF. But some VNFs may be still be viable for particular 
purposes (e.g. in tests for performance or lifecycle automation) even if they 
are incomplete or there is no active community.

Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan | AT

From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 6:07 AM
To: Zhou, Danny >
Cc: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L >; KLUGER, YOAV 
>; 
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org; onap-discuss 
>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Call for vCPE VNFs proposals


Could we also start listing who is supporting the open source VNFs? E.g. even 
the simple open source based VNFs we are using for the current ONAP demo  based 
on the seed code took a couple of people 2 months or so to get to work properly 
in the integration environment. I would assume that for commercial VNFs this 
support will be provided by the vendor. However, for open source VNFs we need 
volunteers to take on that role. I would track those on the Wiki or identify 
them as gaps. If we can’t find that support we can’t use that VNF.

Thx

Oliver

On May 31, 2017, at 11:36 PM, Zhou, Danny 
> wrote:

The wiki 
page
 already lists preferred and usable open source VNFs like below, but the ONOS 
vBNG as open source vBNG and OpenWRT as open source vHGW does not make sense to 
me. Specifically, the ONOS vBNG is essentially a L3 NAT without the 
capabilities to address requirement such as session management, traffic 
aggregation and routing, etc., and in addition to OpenWRT acting as vHGW, VPP 
based high performance Home 

Re: [onap-tsc] Final Preparation For ONAP Project Creation Reviews For June 8th and 9th

[Kenny Paul]

Hello Marco,

We are recording audio which will be posted, with the caveat that there have 
been a number of sound quality issues with today’s session.

Best Regards, 
-kenny

Kenny Paul,  Technical Program Manager
kp...@linuxfoundation.org
510.766.5945

> On Jun 7, 2017, at 5:12 PM, PLATANIA, MARCO (MARCO) 
>  wrote:
> 
> Phil,
>  
> Will the video recordings of the F2F sessions (especially those on the 
> proposed projects) available to those that cannot attend in person?
>  
> Thanks,
> Marco
>  
> From:  > on behalf of Phil Robb 
> >
> Date: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 1:34 AM
> To: onap-tsc >, 
> "onap-disc...@lists.onap.org " 
> >
> Subject: [onap-tsc] Final Preparation For ONAP Project Creation Reviews For 
> June 8th and 9th
>  
> Hello ONAP Developer Community:
>  
> I am looking very forward to seeing many of you tomorrow at our second Face 
> to Face meeting hosted by China Mobile in Beijing.
>  
> We will be attempting to get through as many Project Creation Reviews as 
> possible during this two day event.  Given that we have around 30 project 
> proposals and only about 6.5 hours allotted for the reviews we are going to 
> need to be very efficient with our time.
>  
> We have created a wiki page to break-down the Creation Review time slots into 
> 15 minute intervals.  It is located 
> here:https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6590432 
> 
>  
> If you are a "Project Contact" for an ONAP project, and you want your project 
> to be reviewed during Face to Face meeting, please find an empty time slot on 
> that wiki page and enter your information there.
> ** Please remember to have reviewed the "Initial Project Proposal Feedback 
> From The TSC" page and ensure that the questions/comments raised there have 
> been addressed in your project proposal.
> https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Initial+Project+Proposal+Feedback+From+the+TSC
>  
> 
>  
> For ONAP TSC members, please re-review both the Project Feedback page, and 
> the Project Proposal page for each project to be reviewed in preparation of 
> the Creation Reviews. 
>  
> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
>  
> Best,.
>  
> Phil.
> -- 
> Phil Robb
> Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
> (O) 970-229-5949
> (M) 970-420-4292
> Skype: Phil.Robb
> ___
> ONAP-TSC mailing list
> ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org 
> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc 
> 

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc