date:20170622

Re: [onap-tsc] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

2017-06-22 Thread Phil Robb

Done.  Optimization Framework is now on the agenda.

Best,

Phil.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:53 PM, SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) <
spat...@research.att.com> wrote:

>
> Can we put the optimization framework back on the agenda too? I think we
> have addressed Stephen's and Chris’s concerns and I am not aware of any
> other.
>
> Thx
>
> Oliver
>
> On Jun 22, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Phil Robb  wrote:
>
> The Agenda has been updated.
>
> Best,
>
> Phil.
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Jason Hunt  wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can we get an updated agenda of project reviews for tomorrow's TSC
>> meeting?  I need to brief my delegate.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jason Hunt
>> Executive Software Architect, IBM
>>
>> Phone: +1-314-749-7422 <(314)%20749-7422>
>> Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
>> Twitter: @DJHunt
>>
>>
>> ___
>> ONAP-TSC mailing list
>> ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
>> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
>> 
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Phil Robb
> Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
> (O) 970-229-5949 <(970)%20229-5949>
> (M) 970-420-4292 <(970)%20420-4292>
> Skype: Phil.Robb
> ___
> ONAP-TSC mailing list
> ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.
> onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=
> 3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4=1V52W_
> rD7UxEIOlzLt65ifw2TqZWSwMjtUoydIYN4U4=uf5667Zru1tUjaum6ybmsCs333UAeb
> Br1VPnMbT_-cs=
>
>
>


-- 
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

Re: [onap-tsc] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

2017-06-22 Thread SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)


Can we put the optimization framework back on the agenda too? I think we have 
addressed Stephen's and Chris’s concerns and I am not aware of any other.

Thx

Oliver

On Jun 22, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Phil Robb 
> wrote:

The Agenda has been updated.

Best,

Phil.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Jason Hunt 
> wrote:

Hi,

Can we get an updated agenda of project reviews for tomorrow's TSC meeting?  I 
need to brief my delegate.

Thank you!


Regards,
Jason Hunt
Executive Software Architect, IBM

Phone: +1-314-749-7422
Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
Twitter: @DJHunt


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




--
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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_mailman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=3WBYkehchaQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4=1V52W_rD7UxEIOlzLt65ifw2TqZWSwMjtUoydIYN4U4=uf5667Zru1tUjaum6ybmsCs333UAebBr1VPnMbT_-cs=

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

2017-06-22 Thread Phil Robb

The Agenda has been updated.

Best,

Phil.

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Jason Hunt  wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> Can we get an updated agenda of project reviews for tomorrow's TSC
> meeting?  I need to brief my delegate.
>
> Thank you!
>
>
> Regards,
> Jason Hunt
> Executive Software Architect, IBM
>
> Phone: +1-314-749-7422 <(314)%20749-7422>
> Email: djh...@us.ibm.com
> Twitter: @DJHunt
>
>
> ___
> ONAP-TSC mailing list
> ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
> https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
>
>


-- 
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] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

2017-06-22 Thread Jason Hunt

 
Hi,
 
Can we get an updated agenda of project reviews for tomorrow's TSC meeting?  I need to brief my delegate.
 
Thank you!
Regards,Jason HuntExecutive Software Architect, IBMPhone: +1-314-749-7422Email: djh...@us.ibm.comTwitter: @DJHunt

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

2017-06-22 Thread PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT)

All (especially Steve and Chris),

Thanks much for your excellent suggestions to render additional clarity.
I have incorporated them to the proposal. 

Best regards,
Sarat


-Original Message-
From: Christopher Donley (Chris) [mailto:christopher.don...@huawei.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:36 PM
To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) 
Cc: Stephen Terrill ; PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT) 
; onap-tsc 
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Thanks Oliver.  That works for me.



Chris



-Original Message-

From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) [mailto:spat...@research.att.com] 

Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 12:50 PM

To: Christopher Donley (Chris)

Cc: Stephen Terrill; PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT); onap-tsc

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework





I would say something like:



“ It offers a set of MS which provide reusable optimization functionality which 
can optionally be used by other ECOMP components if required by a use case.” 



I like MS better then SDK but I think we agree.



Can certainly change to may.



Thx



Oliver



> On Jun 22, 2017, at 3:35 PM  EDT, Christopher Donley (Chris) 
>  wrote:

> 

> Oliver,

>  

> Just to clarify the governance question: is this project producing a set of 
> services or an SDK that other projects can choose to implement or is it 
> producing artifacts that they must implement?  

>  

> From your example, I read it as the former (that projects can choose whether 
> or not to utilize oof), rather than a mandate.  If so, I’d recommend updating 
> the proposal (particularly the architecture alignment section) to change 
> “[may|will] need to….” language to “may ….” to clarify that point.

>  

> Also (since it will come up tomorrow), please adjust the committer list. 
> Everyone on the project is currently listed as a committer.

>  

> Chris

>  

> From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER 
> (OLIVER)

> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:31 AM

> To: Stephen Terrill

> Cc: PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT); onap-tsc

> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

>  

>  

> I think there are a couple of misconceptions here. 

>  

> This is not the change management project. The change management project was 
> about the end to end use case flow needed to perform change management.  This 
> project ONLY provides the schedule optimization part of that flow. The flow 
> itself touches many projects and as discussed I agree is best handled as a 
> use case. The actual flows would be implemented using all the regular 
> components which at one point in the flow call out to this project for an 
> optimization decision. 

>  

> The same is true for homing. 

>  

> So let me try to illustrate the flow of this a bit better. The scope of the 
> project is algorithms and a run time framework to :

>  

> 1. gather and normalize data to perform an optimization decision based on a 
> request

> 2. gather the polices from the policy engine provided by the policy project 
> using standard APIs exported by that project

> 3. formulate the optimization problem

> 4. run the optimization algorithm (this might be iterative with the prior 
> steps)

> 5. return an optimization result to the requestor

>  

> So let me give a homing related example.

>  

> Let’s assume a workflow in the SO is triggered to instantiate a VNF. As part 
> of the workflow there might be a call into HAS to derive the optimal 
> location. The constrains for the placement are associated with the policy 
> (handled in the policy project) for that VNF. HAS will now go to A and 
> DCAE (using the regular A and DCAE APIs) to gather enough data to make a 
> placement decision at which point HAS would return the result back to the SO 
> so the SO can proceed instantiating the VNF following the rules in it’s 
> workflow.

>  

> Please note that the call out to HAS was part of the SO workflow for that 
> particular VNF.  It’s under the control of whoever designs the SO workflow 
> (likely the specific use case) if HAS gets called or not and what constraints 
> are communicated.

>  

> In terms of execution of all of this. Parts currently run as independent MS 
> other parts run as MS managed on DCAE. Again this project just uses 
> infrastructure that already exists.

>  

> You also mentioned CLAMP. CLAMP flows as any other flow in ONAP could call 
> out to the optimization framework if it helps. If it doesn’t the flows don’t.

>  

> So this should explain how this project does not “hurt” any other project and 
>  is aligned with the architecture.

>  

> Now if I interpret your second question correctly you are also asking “How 
> does it help?” .

>  

> The reason we want to combine all of this in one project is that there is 
> reusability in the code required in steps 1.-5.

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

2017-06-22 Thread Christopher Donley (Chris)

Thanks Oliver.  That works for me.

Chris

-Original Message-
From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) [mailto:spat...@research.att.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 12:50 PM
To: Christopher Donley (Chris)
Cc: Stephen Terrill; PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT); onap-tsc
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework


I would say something like:

“ It offers a set of MS which provide reusable optimization functionality which 
can optionally be used by other ECOMP components if required by a use case.” 

I like MS better then SDK but I think we agree.

Can certainly change to may.

Thx

Oliver

> On Jun 22, 2017, at 3:35 PM  EDT, Christopher Donley (Chris) 
>  wrote:
> 
> Oliver,
>  
> Just to clarify the governance question: is this project producing a set of 
> services or an SDK that other projects can choose to implement or is it 
> producing artifacts that they must implement?  
>  
> From your example, I read it as the former (that projects can choose whether 
> or not to utilize oof), rather than a mandate.  If so, I’d recommend updating 
> the proposal (particularly the architecture alignment section) to change 
> “[may|will] need to….” language to “may ….” to clarify that point.
>  
> Also (since it will come up tomorrow), please adjust the committer list. 
> Everyone on the project is currently listed as a committer.
>  
> Chris
>  
> From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER 
> (OLIVER)
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:31 AM
> To: Stephen Terrill
> Cc: PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT); onap-tsc
> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework
>  
>  
> I think there are a couple of misconceptions here. 
>  
> This is not the change management project. The change management project was 
> about the end to end use case flow needed to perform change management.  This 
> project ONLY provides the schedule optimization part of that flow. The flow 
> itself touches many projects and as discussed I agree is best handled as a 
> use case. The actual flows would be implemented using all the regular 
> components which at one point in the flow call out to this project for an 
> optimization decision. 
>  
> The same is true for homing. 
>  
> So let me try to illustrate the flow of this a bit better. The scope of the 
> project is algorithms and a run time framework to :
>  
> 1. gather and normalize data to perform an optimization decision based on a 
> request
> 2. gather the polices from the policy engine provided by the policy project 
> using standard APIs exported by that project
> 3. formulate the optimization problem
> 4. run the optimization algorithm (this might be iterative with the prior 
> steps)
> 5. return an optimization result to the requestor
>  
> So let me give a homing related example.
>  
> Let’s assume a workflow in the SO is triggered to instantiate a VNF. As part 
> of the workflow there might be a call into HAS to derive the optimal 
> location. The constrains for the placement are associated with the policy 
> (handled in the policy project) for that VNF. HAS will now go to A and 
> DCAE (using the regular A and DCAE APIs) to gather enough data to make a 
> placement decision at which point HAS would return the result back to the SO 
> so the SO can proceed instantiating the VNF following the rules in it’s 
> workflow.
>  
> Please note that the call out to HAS was part of the SO workflow for that 
> particular VNF.  It’s under the control of whoever designs the SO workflow 
> (likely the specific use case) if HAS gets called or not and what constraints 
> are communicated.
>  
> In terms of execution of all of this. Parts currently run as independent MS 
> other parts run as MS managed on DCAE. Again this project just uses 
> infrastructure that already exists.
>  
> You also mentioned CLAMP. CLAMP flows as any other flow in ONAP could call 
> out to the optimization framework if it helps. If it doesn’t the flows don’t.
>  
> So this should explain how this project does not “hurt” any other project and 
>  is aligned with the architecture.
>  
> Now if I interpret your second question correctly you are also asking “How 
> does it help?” .
>  
> The reason we want to combine all of this in one project is that there is 
> reusability in the code required in steps 1.-5.
>  
> For example:
>  
> 1. + 2. requires code to gather information from many existing ONAP 
> components and present them in a common format so they can be used to derive 
> the optimization formulation.
>  
> 3. + 4. as we do not believe that there is one formulation/optimizer which 
> solvers every problem we do believe that the same formulation approach 
> combined with a set of optimizers and constraints can cover a large set of 
> diverse use cases leading to reuse in this area too.
>  
>  So the benefit of the project as the library of 
> formulations/optimizers/runtime framework grows will be that instead of 
>

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

2017-06-22 Thread SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)


I would say something like:

“ It offers a set of MS which provide reusable optimization functionality which 
can optionally be used by other ECOMP components if required by a use case.” 

I like MS better then SDK but I think we agree.

Can certainly change to may.

Thx

Oliver

> On Jun 22, 2017, at 3:35 PM  EDT, Christopher Donley (Chris) 
>  wrote:
> 
> Oliver,
>  
> Just to clarify the governance question: is this project producing a set of 
> services or an SDK that other projects can choose to implement or is it 
> producing artifacts that they must implement?  
>  
> From your example, I read it as the former (that projects can choose whether 
> or not to utilize oof), rather than a mandate.  If so, I’d recommend updating 
> the proposal (particularly the architecture alignment section) to change 
> “[may|will] need to….” language to “may ….” to clarify that point.
>  
> Also (since it will come up tomorrow), please adjust the committer list. 
> Everyone on the project is currently listed as a committer.
>  
> Chris
>  
> From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER 
> (OLIVER)
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 10:31 AM
> To: Stephen Terrill
> Cc: PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT); onap-tsc
> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework
>  
>  
> I think there are a couple of misconceptions here. 
>  
> This is not the change management project. The change management project was 
> about the end to end use case flow needed to perform change management.  This 
> project ONLY provides the schedule optimization part of that flow. The flow 
> itself touches many projects and as discussed I agree is best handled as a 
> use case. The actual flows would be implemented using all the regular 
> components which at one point in the flow call out to this project for an 
> optimization decision. 
>  
> The same is true for homing. 
>  
> So let me try to illustrate the flow of this a bit better. The scope of the 
> project is algorithms and a run time framework to :
>  
> 1. gather and normalize data to perform an optimization decision based on a 
> request
> 2. gather the polices from the policy engine provided by the policy project 
> using standard APIs exported by that project
> 3. formulate the optimization problem
> 4. run the optimization algorithm (this might be iterative with the prior 
> steps)
> 5. return an optimization result to the requestor
>  
> So let me give a homing related example.
>  
> Let’s assume a workflow in the SO is triggered to instantiate a VNF. As part 
> of the workflow there might be a call into HAS to derive the optimal 
> location. The constrains for the placement are associated with the policy 
> (handled in the policy project) for that VNF. HAS will now go to A and 
> DCAE (using the regular A and DCAE APIs) to gather enough data to make a 
> placement decision at which point HAS would return the result back to the SO 
> so the SO can proceed instantiating the VNF following the rules in it’s 
> workflow.
>  
> Please note that the call out to HAS was part of the SO workflow for that 
> particular VNF.  It’s under the control of whoever designs the SO workflow 
> (likely the specific use case) if HAS gets called or not and what constraints 
> are communicated.
>  
> In terms of execution of all of this. Parts currently run as independent MS 
> other parts run as MS managed on DCAE. Again this project just uses 
> infrastructure that already exists.
>  
> You also mentioned CLAMP. CLAMP flows as any other flow in ONAP could call 
> out to the optimization framework if it helps. If it doesn’t the flows don’t.
>  
> So this should explain how this project does not “hurt” any other project and 
>  is aligned with the architecture.
>  
> Now if I interpret your second question correctly you are also asking “How 
> does it help?” .
>  
> The reason we want to combine all of this in one project is that there is 
> reusability in the code required in steps 1.-5.
>  
> For example:
>  
> 1. + 2. requires code to gather information from many existing ONAP 
> components and present them in a common format so they can be used to derive 
> the optimization formulation.
>  
> 3. + 4. as we do not believe that there is one formulation/optimizer which 
> solvers every problem we do believe that the same formulation approach 
> combined with a set of optimizers and constraints can cover a large set of 
> diverse use cases leading to reuse in this area too.
>  
>  So the benefit of the project as the library of 
> formulations/optimizers/runtime framework grows will be that instead of 
> writing code for new optimization challenges they can be just configured or 
> at least will require minimal code development.
>  
> Does that address your concerns?
>  
> Please advice how you want to document this? E.g. I can add this as a comment 
> to the project proposal. I think the proposal already makes

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

2017-06-22 Thread SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)

I think you are highlighting this:

> In terms of execution of all of this. Parts currently run as independent MS 
> other parts run as MS managed on DCAE. Again this project just uses 
> infrastructure that already exists.
>  

that survived.

Oliver


> On Jun 22, 2017, at 3:28 PM  EDT, ROSE, DANIEL V  wrote:
> 
> The original design I saw had the SNIRO framework (att internal name for 
> this) as being a few microservices deployed via OOM. OOM would then place 
> them near other components based on needs (Ie if dcae needs a certain 
> optimization service, instances of it would be deployed closer to the edge 
> dace relies on. If it is something SO needs, it would be deployed closer to 
> the core but that placement logic was all in oom. Not sure if that logic 
> survives to the current proposal.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> Daniel Rose
> ECOMP / ONAP
> com.att.ecomp
> 732-420-7308
>  
> From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
> [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:22 PM
> To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER 
> Cc: PUTHENPURA, SARAT ; onap-tsc 
> 
> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework
>  
> Hi Oliver,
>  
> Thanks for the clarifications – I do understand better now and as a result I 
> am fine with this.
>  
> Two questions/comments though:
> -  I assume it could even be called by the controllers if this was 
> relivant (e.g. the VF-C, OOM).
>  
> Perhaps in the description at the start just after where it says the project 
> would provide 2 new services a) HAS and b) CMSO, you could put:
> These will be delivered as 3 modules.  One for HAS, one for CMSO and one for 
> the service design framework.
> The HAS and CMSO modules will execute both as services on DCAE and 
> independent processes.
> --
>  
> BR,
>  
> Steve
>  
> From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) [mailto:spat...@research.att.com] 
> Sent: 22 June 2017 19:31
> To: Stephen Terrill 
> Cc: onap-tsc ; PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT) 
> 
> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework
>  
>  
> I think there are a couple of misconceptions here. 
>  
> This is not the change management project. The change management project was 
> about the end to end use case flow needed to perform change management.  This 
> project ONLY provides the schedule optimization part of that flow. The flow 
> itself touches many projects and as discussed I agree is best handled as a 
> use case. The actual flows would be implemented using all the regular 
> components which at one point in the flow call out to this project for an 
> optimization decision. 
>  
> The same is true for homing. 
>  
> So let me try to illustrate the flow of this a bit better. The scope of the 
> project is algorithms and a run time framework to :
>  
> 1. gather and normalize data to perform an optimization decision based on a 
> request
> 2. gather the polices from the policy engine provided by the policy project 
> using standard APIs exported by that project
> 3. formulate the optimization problem
> 4. run the optimization algorithm (this might be iterative with the prior 
> steps)
> 5. return an optimization result to the requestor
>  
> So let me give a homing related example.
>  
> Let’s assume a workflow in the SO is triggered to instantiate a VNF. As part 
> of the workflow there might be a call into HAS to derive the optimal 
> location. The constrains for the placement are associated with the policy 
> (handled in the policy project) for that VNF. HAS will now go to A and 
> DCAE (using the regular A and DCAE APIs) to gather enough data to make a 
> placement decision at which point HAS would return the result back to the SO 
> so the SO can proceed instantiating the VNF following the rules in it’s 
> workflow.
>  
> Please note that the call out to HAS was part of the SO workflow for that 
> particular VNF.  It’s under the control of whoever designs the SO workflow 
> (likely the specific use case) if HAS gets called or not and what constraints 
> are communicated.
>  
> In terms of execution of all of this. Parts currently run as independent MS 
> other parts run as MS managed on DCAE. Again this project just uses 
> infrastructure that already exists.
>  
> You also mentioned CLAMP. CLAMP flows as any other flow in ONAP could call 
> out to the optimization framework if it helps. If it doesn’t the flows don’t.
>  
> So this should explain how this project does not “hurt” any other project and 
>  is aligned with the architecture.
>  
> Now if I interpret your second question correctly you are also asking “How 
> does it help?” .
>  
> The reason we want to combine all of this in one project is that there is 
> reusability in the code required in steps 1.-5.
>  
> For example:
>  
> 1. + 2. requires code to gather information from many existing ONAP 
>

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

2017-06-22 Thread SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)


> On Jun 22, 2017, at 3:22 PM  EDT, Stephen Terrill 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Oliver,
>  
> Thanks for the clarifications – I do understand better now and as a result I 
> am fine with this.
>  
> Two questions/comments though:
>   • I assume it could even be called by the controllers if this was 
> relivant (e.g. the VF-C, OOM).
>  

Certainly. Any ECOMP component could call this.

Thx

Oliver

> Perhaps in the description at the start just after where it says the project 
> would provide 2 new services a) HAS and b) CMSO, you could put:
> These will be delivered as 3 modules.  One for HAS, one for CMSO and one for 
> the service design framework.
> The HAS and CMSO modules will execute both as services on DCAE and 
> independent processes.
> --
>  
> BR,
>  
> Steve
>  
> From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) [mailto:spat...@research.att.com] 
> Sent: 22 June 2017 19:31
> To: Stephen Terrill 
> Cc: onap-tsc ; PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT) 
> 
> Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework
>  
>  
> I think there are a couple of misconceptions here. 
>  
> This is not the change management project. The change management project was 
> about the end to end use case flow needed to perform change management.  This 
> project ONLY provides the schedule optimization part of that flow. The flow 
> itself touches many projects and as discussed I agree is best handled as a 
> use case. The actual flows would be implemented using all the regular 
> components which at one point in the flow call out to this project for an 
> optimization decision. 
>  
> The same is true for homing. 
>  
> So let me try to illustrate the flow of this a bit better. The scope of the 
> project is algorithms and a run time framework to :
>  
> 1. gather and normalize data to perform an optimization decision based on a 
> request
> 2. gather the polices from the policy engine provided by the policy project 
> using standard APIs exported by that project
> 3. formulate the optimization problem
> 4. run the optimization algorithm (this might be iterative with the prior 
> steps)
> 5. return an optimization result to the requestor
>  
> So let me give a homing related example.
>  
> Let’s assume a workflow in the SO is triggered to instantiate a VNF. As part 
> of the workflow there might be a call into HAS to derive the optimal 
> location. The constrains for the placement are associated with the policy 
> (handled in the policy project) for that VNF. HAS will now go to A and 
> DCAE (using the regular A and DCAE APIs) to gather enough data to make a 
> placement decision at which point HAS would return the result back to the SO 
> so the SO can proceed instantiating the VNF following the rules in it’s 
> workflow.
>  
> Please note that the call out to HAS was part of the SO workflow for that 
> particular VNF.  It’s under the control of whoever designs the SO workflow 
> (likely the specific use case) if HAS gets called or not and what constraints 
> are communicated.
>  
> In terms of execution of all of this. Parts currently run as independent MS 
> other parts run as MS managed on DCAE. Again this project just uses 
> infrastructure that already exists.
>  
> You also mentioned CLAMP. CLAMP flows as any other flow in ONAP could call 
> out to the optimization framework if it helps. If it doesn’t the flows don’t.
>  
> So this should explain how this project does not “hurt” any other project and 
>  is aligned with the architecture.
>  
> Now if I interpret your second question correctly you are also asking “How 
> does it help?” .
>  
> The reason we want to combine all of this in one project is that there is 
> reusability in the code required in steps 1.-5.
>  
> For example:
>  
> 1. + 2. requires code to gather information from many existing ONAP 
> components and present them in a common format so they can be used to derive 
> the optimization formulation.
>  
> 3. + 4. as we do not believe that there is one formulation/optimizer which 
> solvers every problem we do believe that the same formulation approach 
> combined with a set of optimizers and constraints can cover a large set of 
> diverse use cases leading to reuse in this area too.
>  
>  So the benefit of the project as the library of 
> formulations/optimizers/runtime framework grows will be that instead of 
> writing code for new optimization challenges they can be just configured or 
> at least will require minimal code development.
>  
> Does that address your concerns?
>  
> Please advice how you want to document this? E.g. I can add this as a comment 
> to the project proposal. I think the proposal already makes above points but 
> I am probably biased as I have read it too many times …. .
>  
> Anybody else?
>  
> I am wondering what it would take to put this on the schedule tomorrow so we 
> can close on those things?
>  
> Thx
>  
> Oliver
>  
>  
> On Jun 22,

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

2017-06-22 Thread ROSE, DANIEL V

The original design I saw had the SNIRO framework (att internal name for this) 
as being a few microservices deployed via OOM. OOM would then place them near 
other components based on needs (Ie if dcae needs a certain optimization 
service, instances of it would be deployed closer to the edge dace relies on. 
If it is something SO needs, it would be deployed closer to the core but that 
placement logic was all in oom. Not sure if that logic survives to the current 
proposal.

Thanks,

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

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Stephen Terrill
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:22 PM
To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER 
Cc: PUTHENPURA, SARAT ; onap-tsc 

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Hi Oliver,

Thanks for the clarifications – I do understand better now and as a result I am 
fine with this.

Two questions/comments though:
-  I assume it could even be called by the controllers if this was 
relivant (e.g. the VF-C, OOM).

Perhaps in the description at the start just after where it says the project 
would provide 2 new services a) HAS and b) CMSO, you could put:
These will be delivered as 3 modules.  One for HAS, one for CMSO and one for 
the service design framework.
The HAS and CMSO modules will execute both as services on DCAE and independent 
processes.
--

BR,

Steve

From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) [mailto:spat...@research.att.com]
Sent: 22 June 2017 19:31
To: Stephen Terrill 
>
Cc: onap-tsc >; 
PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT) 
>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework


I think there are a couple of misconceptions here.

This is not the change management project. The change management project was 
about the end to end use case flow needed to perform change management.  This 
project ONLY provides the schedule optimization part of that flow. The flow 
itself touches many projects and as discussed I agree is best handled as a use 
case. The actual flows would be implemented using all the regular components 
which at one point in the flow call out to this project for an optimization 
decision.

The same is true for homing.

So let me try to illustrate the flow of this a bit better. The scope of the 
project is algorithms and a run time framework to :

1. gather and normalize data to perform an optimization decision based on a 
request
2. gather the polices from the policy engine provided by the policy project 
using standard APIs exported by that project
3. formulate the optimization problem
4. run the optimization algorithm (this might be iterative with the prior steps)
5. return an optimization result to the requestor

So let me give a homing related example.

Let’s assume a workflow in the SO is triggered to instantiate a VNF. As part of 
the workflow there might be a call into HAS to derive the optimal location. The 
constrains for the placement are associated with the policy (handled in the 
policy project) for that VNF. HAS will now go to A and DCAE (using the 
regular A and DCAE APIs) to gather enough data to make a placement decision 
at which point HAS would return the result back to the SO so the SO can proceed 
instantiating the VNF following the rules in it’s workflow.

Please note that the call out to HAS was part of the SO workflow for that 
particular VNF.  It’s under the control of whoever designs the SO workflow 
(likely the specific use case) if HAS gets called or not and what constraints 
are communicated.

In terms of execution of all of this. Parts currently run as independent MS 
other parts run as MS managed on DCAE. Again this project just uses 
infrastructure that already exists.

You also mentioned CLAMP. CLAMP flows as any other flow in ONAP could call out 
to the optimization framework if it helps. If it doesn’t the flows don’t.

So this should explain how this project does not “hurt” any other project and  
is aligned with the architecture.

Now if I interpret your second question correctly you are also asking “How does 
it help?” .

The reason we want to combine all of this in one project is that there is 
reusability in the code required in steps 1.-5.

For example:

1. + 2. requires code to gather information from many existing ONAP components 
and present them in a common format so they can be used to derive the 
optimization formulation.

3. + 4. as we do not believe that there is one formulation/optimizer which 
solvers every problem we do believe that the same formulation approach combined 
with a set of optimizers and constraints can cover a large set of diverse use 
cases leading to reuse in this area too.

 So the benefit of the project as the library of 
formulations/optimizers/runtime framework grows

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

2017-06-22 Thread Stephen Terrill

Hi Oliver,

Thanks for the clarifications – I do understand better now and as a result I am 
fine with this.

Two questions/comments though:

  *   I assume it could even be called by the controllers if this was relivant 
(e.g. the VF-C, OOM).

Perhaps in the description at the start just after where it says the project 
would provide 2 new services a) HAS and b) CMSO, you could put:
These will be delivered as 3 modules.  One for HAS, one for CMSO and one for 
the service design framework.
The HAS and CMSO modules will execute both as services on DCAE and independent 
processes.
--

BR,

Steve

From: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) [mailto:spat...@research.att.com]
Sent: 22 June 2017 19:31
To: Stephen Terrill 
Cc: onap-tsc ; PUTHENPURA, SARAT (SARAT) 

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework


I think there are a couple of misconceptions here.

This is not the change management project. The change management project was 
about the end to end use case flow needed to perform change management.  This 
project ONLY provides the schedule optimization part of that flow. The flow 
itself touches many projects and as discussed I agree is best handled as a use 
case. The actual flows would be implemented using all the regular components 
which at one point in the flow call out to this project for an optimization 
decision.

The same is true for homing.

So let me try to illustrate the flow of this a bit better. The scope of the 
project is algorithms and a run time framework to :

1. gather and normalize data to perform an optimization decision based on a 
request
2. gather the polices from the policy engine provided by the policy project 
using standard APIs exported by that project
3. formulate the optimization problem
4. run the optimization algorithm (this might be iterative with the prior steps)
5. return an optimization result to the requestor

So let me give a homing related example.

Let’s assume a workflow in the SO is triggered to instantiate a VNF. As part of 
the workflow there might be a call into HAS to derive the optimal location. The 
constrains for the placement are associated with the policy (handled in the 
policy project) for that VNF. HAS will now go to A and DCAE (using the 
regular A and DCAE APIs) to gather enough data to make a placement decision 
at which point HAS would return the result back to the SO so the SO can proceed 
instantiating the VNF following the rules in it’s workflow.

Please note that the call out to HAS was part of the SO workflow for that 
particular VNF.  It’s under the control of whoever designs the SO workflow 
(likely the specific use case) if HAS gets called or not and what constraints 
are communicated.

In terms of execution of all of this. Parts currently run as independent MS 
other parts run as MS managed on DCAE. Again this project just uses 
infrastructure that already exists.

You also mentioned CLAMP. CLAMP flows as any other flow in ONAP could call out 
to the optimization framework if it helps. If it doesn’t the flows don’t.

So this should explain how this project does not “hurt” any other project and  
is aligned with the architecture.

Now if I interpret your second question correctly you are also asking “How does 
it help?” .

The reason we want to combine all of this in one project is that there is 
reusability in the code required in steps 1.-5.

For example:

1. + 2. requires code to gather information from many existing ONAP components 
and present them in a common format so they can be used to derive the 
optimization formulation.

3. + 4. as we do not believe that there is one formulation/optimizer which 
solvers every problem we do believe that the same formulation approach combined 
with a set of optimizers and constraints can cover a large set of diverse use 
cases leading to reuse in this area too.

 So the benefit of the project as the library of 
formulations/optimizers/runtime framework grows will be that instead of writing 
code for new optimization challenges they can be just configured or at least 
will require minimal code development.

Does that address your concerns?

Please advice how you want to document this? E.g. I can add this as a comment 
to the project proposal. I think the proposal already makes above points but I 
am probably biased as I have read it too many times …. .

Anybody else?

I am wondering what it would take to put this on the schedule tomorrow so we 
can close on those things?

Thx

Oliver


On Jun 22, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Stephen Terrill 
> wrote:

Hi,

I had an action to start a thread about the optimization framework :

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP projects

2017-06-22 Thread Gary Wu

Since there will be lots of voting over time, may I suggest the following:

1.   Document the below on the wiki as the standard/recommended process to 
run a voting poll, and

2.   Request that the results of completed polls (i.e. links to the results 
page) be recorded and shared as public record.

Thanks,
Gary

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of Phil Robb
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 3:18 AM
To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) ; onap-tsc 

Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP projects

Hi Oliver:
.. I added the TSC list to this reply as it is generally applicable.

Normally, I would suggest at least one week for the nomination period and one 
week for the voting, but in accelerated conditions we can do it as quickly as 2 
days for nominations and 2 days for voting.  The concern is that people may be 
on vacation and miss the opportunity.  Those in a project should do their best 
to ensure that all committers are aware of the election.

Along with the self nomination, suggest to the candidates that they include a 
bio and statement of intent for the PTL position.

To perform the vote, I suggest using the CIVS system from Cornell University.
http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/

Select "Create A Poll" in the upper right hand corner and fill out the form, 
selecting the options and end date/time you want (be specific including time 
zone).  I usually keep the "Completion Method" at the default, select detailed 
ballot reporting but leave the results anonymous.  I also have the results of 
the poll visible to all who receive an invitation to vote.  You will need to 
describe the election "CLAMP PTL Election" for example, then specify the 
candidates.
  After you have completed the form, an email will be sent to you with a link 
as the Voting Coordinator.
Click that link and from there hit the "Start Poll" button.
Once the Poll is started go back to the "Poll Control" page and enter the email 
address of all committers on the project and invite them to vote.

That's it.  The email invitations will be sent.  When the end-time comes, go 
back to the "Poll Control" webpage and close the poll.  Once that is done you 
can see the results of the election.  Send an email to the committers 
indicating the election has concluded and indicate the winner.  There is a link 
on the invitation to vote, that points to the election results as well.

Hope that helps.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Phil.

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:12 PM, SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) 
> wrote:

Phil,

so how is the process for this?

I would assume:

1. project solicits self nominations on onap-discuss
2. wait (for how long)
3. set up vote with committers being able to vote
4. wait (for how long)

have PTL elected.

Could you advice on waiting times so I can make sure all projects with an AT 
contact are going through this?

Thx

Oliver

> On Jun 13, 2017, at 7:48 PM  EDT, Phil Robb 
> > wrote:
>
> I suggest they use the CIVS system that we used for release naming, vice 
> chair election etc.
>
> To set it up you go here: http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/
>
> We should include a short tutorial on how to set one up as part of the PTL 
> role webinar.  It is very straight forward.
>
> Best,
>
> Phil.
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 12:58 AM, SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) 
> > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:39 AM  EDT, Phil Robb 
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Each project should hold a PTL election from their newly formed committer 
> > list.
>
> How is that done?
>
> Not sure all the PTLs are familiar enough or able to access IRC right now.  
> As this will get fixed over time I don’t think we want to delay the projects 
> because of this.
>
> Could they each have a zoom meeting and vote there? Is that done on the 
> onap-discuss mailing list? Are you going to set up a poll?
>
> Can we close on this this week?
>
> Thx
>
> Oliver
>
>
>
> --
> Phil Robb
> Executive Director, OpenDaylight Project
> VP Operations - Networking & Orchestration, The Linux Foundation
> (O) 970-229-5949
> (M) 970-420-4292
> Skype: Phil.Robb

--
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] Optimization framework

2017-06-22 Thread Stephen Terrill

Hi,

I had an action to start a thread about the optimization framework : 
https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3247288

To start with, my question is not on the need of optimization and Change 
management, nor about release vs project (that can be sorted out) but about the 
architecture and related project structure we should have for this 
functionality. Basically I am wondering concretely what this is and how 
best it should be done.

For optimization:
The way HAS is described it sometimes appears as an extra module that receives 
information from DCAI, AAI, makes a resource allocation decision and stores 
that in A  This interpretation of the approach leaves me wondering about 
the overlap with:

  *   DCAE applications (if I can use the word)
  *   Policy framework
  *   Orchestration and controllers (which should update A).
  *   CLAMP from a SDC perspective?
Another interpretation is that HAS is something that is called from DCAE, 
CLAMP, SO, Controllers, and appears to be that there is commonality between 
them hence worth having as a common module.  Is it really common?  Instead 
isn't it addition on CLAMP, new DCAE applications, SO and controller modules?  
If so, should we go ahead and place the work in those projects?

For CMSO:

  *   I understand this replaces the change management project?
  *   I understand from this description that it is a separate, new module that 
is created.

BR,

Steve


[Ericsson]

STEPHEN TERRILL
Technology Specialist
DUIC, Systems and Technology
Development Unit IP & Cloud
Business Unit, IT & Cloud Products

Ericsson
Ericsson R Center, via de los Poblados 13
28033, Madrid, Spain
Phone +34 339 3005
Mobile +34 609 168 515
stephen.terr...@ericsson.com
www.ericsson.com


[http://www.ericsson.com/current_campaign]

Legal entity: Ericsson España S.A, compay registration number ESA288568603. 
This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis 
of the terms set out at 
www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer

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

Re: [onap-tsc] Special (and longer) TSC meeting this Thursday6/22/17

2017-06-22 Thread li.zi30

Hi, Dear TSC,




I noticed that there will be a TSC meeting today, and the project proposals  
will be reviewed . But the External System Register (ESR) is not contained in 
the agenda, which was discussed again in the mail-list after the F2F meeting in 
Beijing.

I picked the sentense "Also if any TSC member has standing item updates or 
other topics that you wanted to raise at this week's meeting please do so on 
the TSC mailing list." from 
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/TSC+Meeting+Resources . It seems that only TSC 
members could raise the topic. I'm wondering whether the ESR reviewing could be 
added in Today's TSC meeting.




Thanks,

LiZi












原始邮件



发件人： 
收件人： 
抄送人： 
日 期 ：2017年06月21日 21:36
主 题 ：Re: [onap-tsc] Special (and longer) TSC meeting this Thursday6/22/17






I would request that we please respect the fd.io TSC meeting, which I chair, 
which is held at 8am PST, by extending the ONAP TSC meeting to two hours by 
starting it at 6am PST, rather than extending its ending to 9am PST.
Ed




On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Phil Robb  wrote:


Hello ONAP TSC Members:


We've been unable to get adequate response from TSC members in the Doodle poll 
to determine when we could hold extra TSC meetings to close on the remaining 
project proposals that would like to participate in Release-1.


Given the urgency of holding these reviews so that development teams can 
actually get to work coding, we are going to hold a special TSC meeting on 
Thursday morning during our regular TSC meeting slot, and we are extending the 
meeting to two hours this week so that we can get through all of the proposals.


Please look for an updated calendar event to this affect.


The agenda, including the order for each Project Creation Review is on the TSC 
Meeting Wiki here: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/TSC+Meeting+Resources


As we did before, one TSC member is responsible to "sheperd" the project 
proposals that fall in their domain.  Please review the list on the agenda, 
identify the projects that you are to be shepherding, and reach out to the 
project contact to ensure they are available to present, *and* ensure that 
there are no outstanding questions/issues from the rest of the TSC that have 
not been addressed in the project proposals.


Let's try very hard to get through all of the remaining proposals on Thursday.  
If that doesn't work, then we will need to call another special meeting 
(probably on Friday) to close on all of them.


Thanks in advance for your help with this. We have project teams *unable* to 
work until the TSC completes these reviews.


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] Special (and longer) TSC meeting this Thursday6/22/17

2017-06-22 Thread zhao.huabing

+1

Besides, since MSB has already been approved by TSC as a standalone project, I 
removed it from CF proposal.








Original Mail



Sender:  
To:   
CC:  
Date: 2017/06/21 22:54
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Special (and longer) TSC meeting this Thursday6/22/17





Hi,
I also believe we should discuss Extensibility project separately, as there was 
not much support to move on with Common Frameworks altogether.

 Best regards, 

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division 
Amdocs Technology





-Original Message-
From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 5:40 PM
To: Phil Robb 
Cc: onap-tsc 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Special (and longer) TSC meeting this Thursday 6/22/17


Phil,

I thought we decided to pursue: "• Network Function Change Management” as a 
use case in the use case sub committee instead of a project when we were in 
Beijing. Do we have to discuss this again? Please advice so I can make sure the 
correct experts will dial in.

Thx

Oliver

> On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:16 AM  EDT, Phil Robb  wrote:
> 
> Hello ONAP TSC Members:
> 
> We've been unable to get adequate response from TSC members in the Doodle 
> poll to determine when we could hold extra TSC meetings to close on the 
> remaining project proposals that would like to participate in Release-1.
> 
> Given the urgency of holding these reviews so that development teams can 
> actually get to work coding, we are going to hold a special TSC meeting on 
> Thursday morning during our regular TSC meeting slot, and we are extending 
> the meeting to two hours this week so that we can get through all of the 
> proposals.
> 
> Please look for an updated calendar event to this affect.
> 
> The agenda, including the order for each Project Creation Review is on 
> the TSC Meeting Wiki here: 
> https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/TSC+Meeting+Resources
> 
> As we did before, one TSC member is responsible to "sheperd" the project 
> proposals that fall in their domain.  Please review the list on the agenda, 
> identify the projects that you are to be shepherding, and reach out to the 
> project contact to ensure they are available to present, *and* ensure that 
> there are no outstanding questions/issues from the rest of the TSC that have 
> not been addressed in the project proposals.
> 
> Let's try very hard to get through all of the remaining proposals on 
> Thursday.  If that doesn't work, then we will need to call another special 
> meeting (probably on Friday) to close on all of them.
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help with this. We have project teams *unable* to 
> work until the TSC completes these reviews.
> 
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.onap.org_ma
> ilman_listinfo_onap-2Dtsc=DwICAg=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=3WBYkehc
> haQg0p_gO26aU_ahomnFHCk_-us7kcQebm4=m9Kks2xE5W3_0JTf6yJDnEuTUF2hMt9h
> z0dh9cQ3pG4=SAKmpkar1vXIHYgRw9hb0fSzfgzgsdNjYnNmz03j7gw=

___
ONAP-TSC mailing list
ONAP-TSC@lists.onap.org
https://lists.onap.org/mailman/listinfo/onap-tsc
This message and the information contained herein is proprietary and 
confidential and subject to the Amdocs policy statement,

you may review at https://www.amdocs.com/about/email-disclaimer 

___
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] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

Re: [onap-tsc] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

Re: [onap-tsc] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

[onap-tsc] Agenda for tomorrow (Friday) TSC meeting?

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Re: [onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Re: [onap-tsc] ONAP projects

[onap-tsc] Optimization framework

Re: [onap-tsc] Special (and longer) TSC meeting this Thursday6/22/17

Re: [onap-tsc] Special (and longer) TSC meeting this Thursday6/22/17

15 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information