025 88013478
> M: +86 13851446442
> E: yuan....@zte.com.cn
> www.zte.com.cn
> 原始邮件
> 发件人： ＜spat...@research.att.com＞;
> 收件人： ＜onap-tsc@lists.onap.org＞;
> 日 期 ：2017年05月17日 03:47
> 主 题 ：[onap-tsc] Thoughts on next steps.
>
>
>
> I just went through th
11:31 PM
To: RATH, CHRISTOPHER A (CHRISTOPHER A) <c...@research.att.com>
Cc: SPATSCHECK, OLIVER (OLIVER) <spat...@research.att.com>;
onap-tsc@lists.onap.org
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Thoughts on next steps.
"For MSB: I agree this should be part of CCF. It could be used by DCAE an
收件人： ＜onap-tsc@lists.onap.org＞
日 期 ：2017年05月17日 03:47
主 题 ：[onap-tsc] Thoughts on next steps.
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 o
OPHER A (CHRISTOPHER A)" <c...@research.att.com>, "SPATSCHECK,
OLIVER (OLIVER)" <spat...@research.att.com>, onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>
Subject: Re: [onap-tsc] Thoughts on next steps.
@Oliver – I share your concern about having 32 projects and gating the release
wi
ap.org<mailto:onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>>
Subject: [onap-tsc] Thoughts on next steps.
***Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT ***
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.
I just went through the proposals and noticed that quite a few of them hav
