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 spli
+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:
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.
