Re: [onap-tsc] [Onap-usecasesub] R2 use cases planning

[Alla Goldner]

I also like where this is heading, however, unlike any standards activities 
mentioned by you, Vladimir, we are committed for the integration effort and 
also committed to demonstrate working use cases, based on the set of the 
supported features. While in standards organization feature may be split 
between a different working groups and, eventually, parts of it may be 
implemented in a different Releases/and in some cases may not even be 
implemented at all. Therefore, I believe, we, at least, are obligated to define 
a "minimal functionality" for the use cases we support in one particular 
Release, while the rest leave up to the projects to decide on.


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] [Onap-usecasesub] R2 use cases planning
From: "Vladimir Yanover (vyanover)" 
Date: Aug 29, 2017, 2:29 PM
To: "SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)" ,Alla Goldner 
,"Vul, Alex" ,onap-usecasesub 

+1.
This is how all feature planning committees work (well, those I was monitoring 
or participated).
The only difference is that for IEEE and 3GPP features it was a question to 
vendors when certain feature can be implemented. In ONAP it must be particular 
projects instead.
Thanks
Vladimir

From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] 
On Behalf Of SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2017 2:22 PM
To: Alla Goldner ; Vul, Alex ; 
onap-usecasesub 
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P 
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] [Onap-usecasesub] R2 use cases planning


I like where this is heading. If we were true agile we would decouple this a 
bit.

We take the use cases, break them down in platform features, add the platform 
features to the backlog of each project and each project can decide which 
platform backlog features to work on for the next release.  There might be some 
minimal coordination needed (minimal set of required features for the next 
release) to arrive at a working system but it would be much lighter touch then 
now. It would also allow projects to think about the bigger picture when making 
implementation decisions as they would know what will be coming in the future 
and they don’t just add a “fix” for the next use case requested.

Oliver

From: 
>
 on behalf of Alla Goldner 
>
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 12:41 PM
To: "Vul, Alex" >, 
onap-usecasesub 
>
Cc: "onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P" 
>
Subject: Re: [Onap-usecasesub] [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Right, and this is what we are supposed to do in September, please see attached 
the previously distributed milestones plan proposal.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D320D3.3148CFC0]

From: Vul, Alex [mailto:alex@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 7:35 PM
To: Alla Goldner >; 
onap-usecasesub 
>
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P 
>
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Hi Alla,

Agree with what you are saying. I would even go a step further and say that the 
use case subcommittee needs to develop a use case pipeline that would inform 
ONAP architecture/design and implementation activities *ahead* of time when 
particular functionality is required for use case support.

Thanks,

Alex Vul
Intel Corporation


From: Alla Goldner [mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:31 AM
To: Vul, Alex >; onap-usecasesub 
>
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P 
>
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Hi Alex,

Of course, we can do it, I agree.
However, would be good to also define which functional scope is targeted for R2 
5G use case explicitly.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D320D3.3148CFC0]

From: Vul, Alex [mailto:alex@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 7:26 PM
To: Alla Goldner >; 
onap-usecasesub 
>
Cc: 

Re: [onap-tsc] [Onap-usecasesub] R2 use cases planning

[SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)]

I like where this is heading. If we were true agile we would decouple this a 
bit.

We take the use cases, break them down in platform features, add the platform 
features to the backlog of each project and each project can decide which 
platform backlog features to work on for the next release.  There might be some 
minimal coordination needed (minimal set of required features for the next 
release) to arrive at a working system but it would be much lighter touch then 
now. It would also allow projects to think about the bigger picture when making 
implementation decisions as they would know what will be coming in the future 
and they don’t just add a “fix” for the next use case requested.

Oliver

From:  on behalf of Alla Goldner 

Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 12:41 PM
To: "Vul, Alex" , onap-usecasesub 

Cc: "onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P" 
Subject: Re: [Onap-usecasesub] [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Right, and this is what we are supposed to do in September, please see attached 
the previously distributed milestones plan proposal.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D32097.92242830]

From: Vul, Alex [mailto:alex@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 7:35 PM
To: Alla Goldner ; onap-usecasesub 

Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P 
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Hi Alla,

Agree with what you are saying. I would even go a step further and say that the 
use case subcommittee needs to develop a use case pipeline that would inform 
ONAP architecture/design and implementation activities *ahead* of time when 
particular functionality is required for use case support.

Thanks,

Alex Vul
Intel Corporation


From: Alla Goldner [mailto:alla.gold...@amdocs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:31 AM
To: Vul, Alex >; onap-usecasesub 
>
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P 
>
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Hi Alex,

Of course, we can do it, I agree.
However, would be good to also define which functional scope is targeted for R2 
5G use case explicitly.

Best regards,

Alla Goldner

Open Network Division
Amdocs Technology


[cid:image001.png@01D32097.92242830]

From: Vul, Alex [mailto:alex@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 7:26 PM
To: Alla Goldner >; 
onap-usecasesub 
>
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P 
>
Subject: RE: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Alla,

I would suggest that we continue working on 5G use cases in their entirety, 
even though we may only be able offer a subset of 5G support in R2. I think 5G 
use cases present a set of significant challenges from the ONAP 
architecture/design perspective – both in terms of changes to existing 
components, as well as functionality that is missing all together. It would be 
good to consider these challenges as we continue to refine the ONAP 
functionality/capabilities in R2 and beyond. Going into R3, we should have 
enough capabilities to support a full-features 5G use case…

My two cents,

Alex Vul
Intel Corporation



From: onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org 
[mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Alla Goldner
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:16 AM
To: onap-usecasesub 
>
Cc: onap-tsc@lists.onap.org P 
>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] R2 use cases planning

Hi all,

Let me try to summarize some interim results of this discussion:


1.  There seem to be consensus that R2 major goal is to concentrate on 
supporting ONAP Platform capabilities missing in R1, which would eventually 
lead to mature “enterprise grade” platform and introduction of a new services 
which would come with minimal/no new development.

2.  With that, there is a desire to have some new use cases in R2, though 
would be ideal if those new use cases can be based on introduced Platform 
capabilities/support of existing services, thus no significant time would be 
spend on the functional aspects of those use cases.


As a result



3.  We work on/extend the list of ONAP missing Platform capabilities