Kanagaraj,
we started collecting none functional requirements for the next release here:
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/R2+proposals+for+Non-functional+requirements
so they can be prioritized. Could you document your suggestion there?
I do agree that our authentication/authorization setup ne
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.
Just to be clear it’s development resources – people writing actual code.
Let me also try to separate resources a bit:
1. There are core development resources. People which write, integrate
and test code which is part of the platform.
2. There are developers which work on particul
Also not sure if it is entirely black and white. There might be some projects
we can move in the R1 timeframe if we allow for one project at a time
migration. Then the PTL can make that choice based on there workload and
project complexity.
Oliver
> On Aug 4, 2017, at 2:44 AM EDT, LEFEVRE, C
I also agree with Dhananjay => We spend too much effort on functional aspects
for R1. There is still some issues to setup a full ONAP platform on Vanilla
OpenStack.
+1
I wonder if we should have alternate releases. One for new functionality
followed by one to clean up technical debt follow
I think we all agree on the goal. I do wonder though how much of what you see
is an artifact of projects getting established and moving large pre existing
code fragments as seed code into the correct location and how much is really
new development which has started for this release and been don
Could we put that on the TSC agenda on Thu?
Thx
Oliver
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 8:07 AM EDT, LEFEVRE, CATHERINE
> wrote:
>
> ***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT&T ***
> Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.
>
> Dear ONAP TSC,
>
> I
I think ONAP should have an ONAP User Group. The goal of this group would be to
foster the use of ONAP rather then handle the development of ONAP which we have
been so focused on. I think if we intermingle the two to much we are just
slowing things down. Now I don’t know what form this should
+1
On Jun 30, 2017, at 11:41 AM, Andrew Grimberg
mailto:agrimb...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
To help weed things down I would suggest that every repository in a
project be required to define a distinct list of committers and not
allow an umbrella project to define top level committers. That l
Mazin,
your email triggered me to actually go through the wiki and get some stats. I
attached a spreadsheet with committers per company and project (I did this
manually so there might be some minor mistakes but the trend holds). Also the
companies are sorted by appearance so the order is rando
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
mailto:pr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
The Agenda has been updated.
Best,
Phil.
On T
y ….” 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 Beh
t; 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 Terri
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)
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 touch
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
> On Jun 13, 2017, at 11:50 AM EDT, Kenny Paul
> wrote:
>
> Sorry, That is what I thought from over the phone.
>
> Best Regards,
> -kenny
>
> Kenny Paul, Technical Program Manager
> kp...@linuxfoundation.org
> 510.766.5945
>
>> On Jun 12, 20
Yuan,
just to be clear we did agree to integrate Holmes into DCAE in release 1.0:
"DCAE supports Holmes to be deployed as an analytic application in the form of
docker(s)."
As for which use case is using which configuration this will have to be decided
as part of the release planing I presum
That’s not how I took the poll. I thought the question was “if it was decided
that there was a meeting these would be possible days that work”.
I am wondering if we could make this a regional/virtual meeting. E.g. AT&T and
a good number of the other ONAP members have quite elaborate teleconfere
On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Kenny Paul
mailto:kp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
All of the use cases were approved.
That’s not correct. The toy use case and the vEPC/voLTE use case were approved.
The vCPE use case is still being worked with the deadline for all use cases
being the TSC meet
w don't have to be
>> aimed for the first release, but if there is a group interested and it
>> eventually plans to have a result I don't see why it couldn't start now if
>> we are clear on what it is to do.
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> Steve
>&g
it
> eventually plans to have a result I don't see why it couldn't start now if we
> are clear on what it is to do.
>
> BR,
>
> Steve
>
> BR,
>
> Steve.
>
> Sent from my Phone
>
>> On 9 Jun 2017, at 11:23, 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
I have stated this before but I strongly believe we need to separate the
discussion between what ONAP needs or should support and what are the ecosystem
components (both VNFs and cloud infrastructure) which are gating for the first
release.
The first category is easy. ONAP should support ever
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 c
eeting notes, and
if so, where?
Danny
From: mailto:onap-tsc-boun...@lists.onap.org>>
on behalf of Ed Warnicke mailto:hagb...@gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, May 26, 2017 at 8:35 AM
To: "SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)"
mailto:spat...@research.att.com>>
Cc: onap-tsc mailto:ona
I noticed that a substantial number of teams are starting either ad hoc or
weekly conference calls. As I think it’s great that the community is forming I
am wondering if we can start tracking those calls on the ONAP wiki page (can
we add a calendar or something like that?).
This would make i
I really don’t like the city idea. E.g. for AT&T our headquarter in Dallas is
listed, however, only a small portion of the ONAP work is done in Dallas.
That’s probably true for most companies.
I would go for birds of prey not that I payed attention in biology …. .
Oliver
> On May 17, 2017,
Yuan,
let me separate things a bit.
The way I look at it is that there is a set of use cases which gate the success
of the release. Those use cases have a set of VNFs.
I completely agree with you that ONAP should support many commercial VNFs. In
fact I would like all commercial VNFs to be s
I just went through the proposals and noticed that quite a few of them have not
clearly defined boundaries between them which makes me wonder if they overlap
(see table below). From experience overlapping project definitions rarely lead
to good outcomes (duplicate work gets done and people are
Don’t get my comment wrong I am in full support of an architecture
subcommittee. I am somewhat worried on scope and process though.
If the architecture team can put release gating requirements on the project as
outlined below (maybe I didn’t understand that correctly …) what is the process
to e
The current scope of integration states:
https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4718718
"It provides all the cross-project infrastructure framework and DevOps
toolchain (Continuous Integration, etc.)
“
so that would be the integration project unless we change the scope.
Oliver
On
Yes that would be in scope of the integration project.
Oliver
On May 11, 2017, at 4:46 PM, Stephen Terrill
mailto:stephen.terr...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi All,
I’ve become aware of colloborative work between a number of communities
regarding CI/CD, where there is information
here:https://wi
So am I. I thought in the charter we had agreed that the MSO code base would
be used for this. Similar to the 3 legacy Open-O components.
Was there any discussion on this anywhere?
Thx
Oliver
> On May 11, 2017, at 3:48 PM EDT, eric.deb...@orange.com wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I am surprised to
e it will be
installed, (from theory, it could be packed in a VM or a container), but OOM
chose docker.
Secondly from its distribution, Microservices Framework is part of ONAP itself;
while OOM will be distributed as tools for ONAP, just as some tools which will
be distributed from Integration pr
ns Manager
and container proposal in scope.
Am I interpreting this correctly?
Thx
Oliver
> On May 10, 2017, at 3:35 PM EDT, Sauvageau, David
> wrote:
>
> Oliver – I can move it there. Was not aware thanks
>
> On 2017-05-10, 3:30 PM, "SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)&qu
I would assume so otherwise we would have duplication.
On an editorial note I thought we were supposed to move the proposal links
above the project proposal draft line here:
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Proposing+A+Project
when they are ready for the TSC review period.
Thx
Oliver
> On
I would rather use scripts then CLI as Brian pointed out but on the other hand
this project will hurt nobody as long as it’s built on top of the REST APIs. So
in my mind this comes down to who wants to put resources on this. I guess what
you are hearing is that some companies won’t … .
Oliver
As I am ready to start commenting on the various proposals I was wondering what
mechanism we should use for that. Should we just use the confluence comment
feature? If we do that we need to make sure that the primary contacts are
responsive in editing the proposal/responding to the comments.
Current plan is to use the LF setup to live stream and record the event. Goal
is to have audio and slides for everything and video for main track.
Oliver
> On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM EDT, Ning.So at ril.com wrote:
>
> Yes, some of the sessions can immediately turn into training video. The
Dear TSC,
I think we have a little conundrum with the current code base repos. As you are
likely aware the original code base we had released was matching our 1610
internal release. We have been busy the last few weeks uploading the delta to
bring the public code base up to the current interna
Chris
From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 12:34 PM
To: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER)
Cc: Christopher Donley (Chris); Ed Warnicke; SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; onap-tsc at
lists.onap.org<mailto:onap-tsc at lists.onap.org>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Updated TSC Charter
I
anticipated issues which might
rarely/never occur.
Oliver
> On Apr 21, 2017, at 1:47 PM EDT, Ed Warnicke wrote:
>
> Inline...
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) research.att.com> wrote:
>
> I guess you could argue that our current code base i
red tape ?.). Probably you get a bit of both.
Oliver
> On Apr 21, 2017, at 12:07 PM EDT, Ed Warnicke wrote:
>
> Oliver,
>
> For my edification, can you give an example or two of where a well scoped
> project would set up multiple repos?
>
> Ed
>
> On Fri, Apr 2
I have another question on the charter. I just noticed that a project (or sub
project) and a repo are the same thing. I find this to be sub optimal. In my
mind a project is a well defined scope of work. A repo has to do with how to
optimize my code management. Am I the only one with the concer
I would have expected to have at least a coordinator focused on this or even
better a project which builds risk analysis tools and guidelines for ONAP. You
can define them under the release requirements but unless you have a group of
people working out the tools and details they really don?t me
Ed,
as I like the idea of ?usability? (we actually have a metric in AT&T our OPS
guys use to tell us how usable ECOMP is?) I am starting to worry how one
coordinates all the coordinators to ensure we still end up writing code rather
then just coordinate it.
Maybe I am overly pessimistic but f
47 matches
Mail list logo
