The page is intended to summarize all the requirements for Casablanca Release. These requirements will need to be prioritized to realistically fit within the Casablanca Release Timeline.
This is not yet the Casablanca Release scope. Release Scope will be finalized by M1 Release Planning.
Projects intended to participate within Casablanca release are posted in wiki.
New projects proposal are posted here. These projects need to be reviewed and approved by TSC.
Some of the Use Cases, Functional and non functional requirements are carried over from previous Amsterdam and Beijing Releases as they required multiple releases to be implemented.
The Requirements extracted from SP lists of priorities for Casablanca are covered either by the Use Case, the functional requirements, the non functional requirement or within a project scope of work.
Use Cases
Use Case | Owner | Projects or functional requirements Impacted for Casablanca | Link(s) to High Level Design (HLD) /Low Level Design (LLD) (if any) | Dependency (from/to) another project(s) | T-Shirt Size (XS, S, M, L, XL)* | Project's Impact: Test Only (TO), Code (C) | Committed (C)/Partially Committed (P) or not (N) per Impacted projects | If Partially or not Committed, then what are the gaps per impacted project (people/FTEs; HLD/LLD; etc) | Company Engagement | Notes | M4 Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
vFW | AT&T | HPA | All: Test Only | N/A - part of regression tests | N/A - part of regression tests | ||||||
vDNS | AT&T | HPA | All: Test Only | N/A - part of regression tests | N/A - part of regression tests | ||||||
VoLTE | China Mobile | HPA | All: Test Only | N/A - part of regression tests | N/A - part of regression tests | ||||||
vCPE | Kang Xi | HPA | All: Test Only | N/A - part of regression tests | N/A - part of regression tests | ||||||
CCVPN | SO,OOF, SDNC,UUI, integration Stretch goal: SDC, DCAE, external API. NOTE: No project should be code impacted by this use case. | Materials Lin Meng. Material Jianguo Zeng | All; Test Code: SO,OOF, SDNC,UUI Stretch goal: SDC, DCAE, external API, CCSDK, HOLMES, POLICY | SO:committed, OOF:committed (Huawei resources as required). UUI:committed Integration: committed SDNC: (Huawei resources as required). Stretch goal: DCAE : Not committed(Huawei &CMCC plan to contribute) SDC: Not committed External API:(VDF & huawei plan to contribute) CCSDK: (Huawei resources as required). HOLMES: (Huawei & ZTE to contribute) POLICY: (Huawei & CMCC to contribute) | if projects not committed is just in strech goal, then we will dev based on exist features, may impact some usibiligy, but won't impact the final result. DCAE : From discussion with Xin Miao (Huawei), this usecase requires new RESTCONF collector to be added into DCAE.This cannot be committed for R3 due to pending requirement clarification and architectural alignment besides resourcing constraint. | China Mobile, Vodafone, Huawei, ZTE | Contingent that Use Case owner are able to add resources on impacted projects and Integration agreement. Refer to this link for CCVPN closed loop related support in R3. | ON TRACK POC Demo planned for ONS at Amsterdam | |||
OSAM/PNF | SO, Portal, External API, APPC, DCAE HPA **NOTE: OSAM uses the PNF capability similar to 5G use case. No new development efforts were identified to support OSAM using PNF VNFRQTS (include PNFs) | OSAM Material | All: Test Only | ATT, Turk Telecom, Swisscom | Contingent that Use Case owner are able to add resources on impacted projects and Integration agreement | POSTPONED Not M4 Gating No Component development required for this usecase in Casablanca Integration testing delayed due to resource contraint. Defer to Dublin |
T-Shirt Size: Ballpark estimation for assessing the development/testing activities performed by the project team; not the integration team
- XS - <4 Man/Weeks;
- S - ~6 Man/Weeks;
- M - ~8 Man/Weeks;
- L - ~12 Man/Weeks;
- XL - > 12 Man/Weeks.
Functional Requirements
Functional Requirements | Owner | Projects Impacted for Casablanca | Link(s) to High Level Design (HLD) /Low Level Design (LLD) (if any) | Priority (from SP perspective) | Dependency (from/to) another project(s) | T-Shirt Size (XS, S, M, L, XL)* | Project's Impact: Test Only (TO), Code (C) | Committed (C)/Partially Committed (P) or not (N) per Impacted projects | If Partially or not Committed, then what are the gaps per impacted project (people/FTEs; HLD/LLD; etc) | Company Engagement | Notes | M4 Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HPA | VNFSDK (minor) | HPA Enhancements (For Casablanca Release) | Orange: 2 ATT: 2 China Telecom: 2 China Mobile: 1 Verizon: 2 Vodafone: 2 | VNFSDK: none SDC: VNFSDK, VNFD model Policy: SDC OOF: SO, Policy, AAI AAI: Multi-CLoud | VNFSDK: M SDC:XS Policy: M OOF: S SO: S AAi: S/M Multi-Cloud: M | VNFSDK (C) | Policy: Committed based on Intel providing resources OOF: Committed VNFSDK: Committed SDC: committed based on Intel contribution. SO: committed AAI: committed based on Intel resources. Multi-Cloud: committed | Intel | ON TRACK All code has been or will be submitted ON TRACK Unresolved dependency on SDC - two bug fixes required. Update: Oct 18: the bugs on SDC have been addressed | |||
Change Management - Flexible designer/orchestrator | SDC, SO, VID | Link to Slide | Orange: 1 ATT: 1 China Telecom: 2 China Mobile: 2 Verizon: 1 Vodafone: 2 | VID: on SO SDC: on SO | SDC:XL VID: M | Code: SO,VID,SDC | VID: Not committed (Note: VID part is "nice to have" - no dependency on VID from other projects) SDC: committed based on Amdocs contribution SO : Committed (with support from ATT resources) | VID: requires additional resources | AT&T, Amdocs | |||
Change Management - traffic migration | SDNC, APPC, VNFSDK | Link to Slide | Orange: 1 ATT: 1 China Telecom: 2 China Mobile: 2 Verizon: 1 Vodafone: 2 | Code: SDNC, APPC | SDN-C: committed APPC: Not committed Orange: Committed | APPC: Not enough details on requirements, plus limited resources | AT&T, Orange, Intel | |||||
Change Management - 5G PNF software upgrade | SO, A&AI, Ansible/EC - test only support; SDNC/CCSDK- dev to incorporate 5G PNFs | Link to Slide | Orange: 1 ATT: 1 China Telecom: 2 China Mobile: 2 Verizon: 1 Vodafone: 2 | SDN-C: Committed | AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei | |||||||
Change Management - CM scheduler | OOF, VID VID - Nice to have - the functionality can still be delivered with OOF only (scheduler would need to be invoked through CLI) | Link to Slide | Orange: 1 ATT: 1 China Telecom: 2 China Mobile: 2 Verizon: 1 Vodafone: 2 | VID on OOF | VID: S | Code: OOF, VID | OOF: Committed VID: Not committed (this can still be delivered with OOF) | VID: requires additional resources | AT&T | |||
Scaling Closed Loop Scaling (High Priority) | Policy, CLAMP, SO, DCAE | Link to Slides | Orange: 1 ATT: 1 China Telecom: 1 China Mobile: 1 Verizon: 3 Vodafone: 1 | CLAMP: on Policy Policy: on SO | CLAMP: M | Code: SO, CLAMP, Policy Test: DCAE | CLAMP: Committed with risks (dependency on Policy) Policy: Committed with risks (TBD) SO: Committed DCAE: Committed | AT&T | ON TRACK All code has been or will be submitted | |||
Scaling Beijing Improvements (High Priority) | Scott Blandford | APPC, SDNC, SO, AAI, VID | VID: on SO APPC: on SO | VID: XS AAI: XS | Code: APPC, SDNC, SO, AAI | AAI: Committed APPC: Committed SDNC: Committed SO: Committed VID: Committed | AT&T | ON TRACK All code has been or will be submitted (VID is having issues with test environment) | ||||
Scaling Controller_Topic_ID (Medium Priority) | Scott Blandford | SO | Code: SO | SO: Committed | AT&T | ON TRACK All code has been or will be submitted | ||||||
Scaling Homing and Capacity Check (Low Priority) | Scott Blandford | Multi-VIM, OOF, SDNC, SO | OOF: on Multicloud and Policy | OOF: S | Code: OOF, SO, SDNC, Multi-VIM | OOF: Partially Committed | OOF: Resource issue if R2 solution needs to be extended for new policy constraints. | AT&T | POSTPONEDPushed to Dublin | |||
5G/PNF Plug and Play | SDC, SO, SDN-C, A&AI, CDT, Modeling, VID, DCAE, DMaaP | Link to Slide | Orange: 2 ATT: 1 China Telecom: 3 China Mobile: 1 Verizon: 1 Vodafone: 2 | VID: on SO | VID: S AAI: XS? need clarification on what's expected OOF: No impact | Code: VID Test Only: SDC Code : DCAE | VID: Committed based on Nokia's contribution SDNC: committed SO: Committed (with resources from Nokia) SDC: support based on current sdc capabilities from Beijing. APPC: No impact AAI: No code change, only modeling changes OOF: No impact DCAE: committed DMaaP: committed | APPC: Per review of slides, does not appear to be anything specific for APPC in Casablanca. Items mentioned are more longer term, roadmap items AAI: Expecting this to be modelling/schema updates only but unclear. Need additional information and analysis by AAI SMEs OOF: Additional information required on policies required for PNF placement DCAE: Committed based on Nokia's contribution on PRH | AT&T, Nokia, | SUBMITTED Code has been developed and submitted. ON TRACK SO Code Merge. Health Checks for PRH done in DCAE. PENDING E2E.Test cases need to be updated (for integration & testing) after1st run of whole flow. Sunny Day scenarios to be prepared (for testing). | ||
5G/PNF Software Version Reporting | CCSDK, SDN-C | Link to Slide | CCSDK: committed SDN-C: committed | AT&T | ON TRACK A&AI and SDC support has been developed. POSTPONED Usage in the 5G Software Upgrade Use Case is pushed to Dublin | |||||||
5G/PNF Lifecycle Management Support (Restart, Suspend of PNF) | SDN-C/SDN-R. Controller support for operations. SDNC (SDNR) dev to incorporate 5G PNFs | Link to Slide | OOF: Supports Change Management Scheduling SDN-C: Committed | Will address this via Change Management | AT&T, China Mobile, Huawei | INVESTIGATING SDN-C Interfaces need investigation. Want to make sure SDN-C is supporting Ansible. | ||||||
5G/performance Analysis and Optimization High Volume and RT Data Collection of PM | DCAE, DMaaP, | Link to Slide | Orange: 2 ATT: 2 China Telecom: 1 China Mobile: 3 Verizon: 3 Vodafone: 3 | DCAE: on DMAAP (native Kafka support) | OOF: M DCAE: L | code change: OOF Code : DCAE | CCSDK: committed SDN-C: committed OOF: No Impact DCAE: Committed (based on Nokia contribution) with dependency risk | OOF: Limited resources | AT&T, Nokia, | DCAE: Edge deployment support for R3, DDS-VES and new analytic platform (flink) not committed due to resource constraint | ON TRACK & CODE SUBMITTED Code is developed & Submitted. | |
5G/performance Analysis and Optimization Bulk PM | DCAE, DMaaP | Link to Slide | DCAE: on DMAAP-DR | DCAE:L | code change: DMaaP Code change: DCAE | DCAE: DataFileCollector- Committed (based on Ericsson Contribution) with dependency risk PMMapper - Partial Commit (Based on Ericsson contribution) + dependency risk – Not a hard requirement | DCAE: Dependency on DMAAP-DR + PMMapper (Stretch goal) | AT&T, Ericsson | ON TRACK DMaaP Data Router ON TRACK File collector available but with a few pending tasks Update form Vimal on Oct 4: File collector on track. POSTPONED PM Mapper postponed to Dublin at M3 | |||
5G/performance Analysis and Optimization Optimization Framework Enhancements (Placement, Formulation, Solving) | OOF | Link to Slide | OOF: M | code change: OOF | OOF: Committed to SON | AT&T, Nokia, Reliance Jio | ON TRACK All code has been submitted | |||||
Withdrawn from Casablanca release by the requirement owner | Orange: 3 ATT: 3 China Telecom: 1 China Mobile: 2 Verizon: 2 Vodafone: 3 | |||||||||||
Centralized Representation and Consistent ID of Cloud Regions, Plan B, Phase 1: Centralized Representation of Cloud Regions | SO, Integration | Centralized Representation and Consistent Identification of Cloud Regions In ONAP | Orange: 1 ATT: 2 China Telecom: 2 China Mobile: 3 Verizon: 1 Vodafone: 1 | code : SO, Integration | SO: committed based on Intel's contribution Integration: committed | To align MVP, propose alternative action plan B: break this requirement into 3 phases. Phase 1 is to centralize the representation of cloud regions; Phase 2 is to apply consistent ID across all related ONAP projects. Phase 3 is to correlate and align dcaeLocation to AAI's cloud region. This phase requires further discussion, hence not listed here. Note on "Intel's contribution": This is the synergy effort with HPA, no further special changes needed here. hence this can be deemed as a dependency on HPA's impact on SO. | SO: will be ready to test soon. Integration: Not started yet. | |||||
Centralized Representation and Consistent ID of Cloud Regions, Plan B, Phase 2: Consistent ID of Cloud Regions | SO,VID,SDNC,OOF,VFC, UUI,MultiCloud. | Centralized Representation and Consistent Identification of Cloud Regions In ONAP | Orange: 1 ATT: 2 China Telecom: 2 China Mobile: 3 Verizon: 1 Vodafone: 1 | VID/SDNC: on SO SO/OOF/VFC: MultiCloud | VID: XS MultiCloud: S VFC:S | code : SO,VID,SDNC,OOF,VFC, UUI,MultiCloud | SO: not committed VID: Not Committed SDNC: Not committed OOF: Committed MultiCloud:Committed VF-C :Committed UUI: committed | SDNC: Limited resources VID: requires additional resources | MultiCloud: Ready to test VFC: not started yet UUI: not started yet | |||
Edge Automation Through ONAP (EA) | A&AI, Multi-Cloud, OOF, SO | Orange: 3 ATT: 3 China Telecom: 3 China Mobile: 3 Verizon: 2 Vodafone: 1 | OOF: on MultiCloud & SO Multi-Cloud: on A&AI | SO: XS AAI: XS OOF: M Multi-Cloud: M-L | Code: OOF, Multi-Cloud, A&AI, SO Test: Integration (vFW use case) | Casablanca MVP:
| M4 on target in relevant projects Integration Test Plan in Progress: HPA & Cloud Agnostic Intent - R3 Test Plan (In Progress) | |||||
Edge Automation Through ONAP (EA) | Multi-Cloud | Orange: 3 ATT: 3 China Telecom: 3 China Mobile: 3 Verizon: 2 Vodafone: 1 | Multi-Cloud: M-L | Code: Multi-Cloud | Casablanca MVP:
| M4 on target in relevant projects Start Small MVP "Node metrics and HPA metrics from Grafana dash board" No plan for integration testing. |
T-Shirt Size: Ballpark estimation for assessing the development/testing activities performed by the project team; not the integration team
- XS - <4 Man/Weeks;
- S - ~6 Man/Weeks;
- M - ~8 Man/Weeks;
- L - ~12 Man/Weeks;
- XL - > 12 Man/Weeks.
Non Functional Requirements
Non Functional Requirements | Owner | Sub-category | Project Impacted for Casablanca | Link(s) to High Level Design (HLD) /Low Level Design (LLD) (if any) | Dependency (from/to) another project(s) | T-Shirt Size (XS, S, M, L, XL)* | Project's Impact: Test Only (TO), Code (C) | Committed (C)/Partially Committed (P) or not (N) per Impacted projects | If Partially or not Committed, then what are the gaps per impacted project (people/FTEs; HLD/LLD; etc) | Company Engagement | Notes | M4 Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S3P |
| Likely ALL depending upon TSC determination of new level requirements per category | Usability: New API’s adhere to Versioning strategy Versioning & API Documentation Recommendations Manageability: Adherence to ONAP Logging Spec v1.2 (implementation of the spec will occur in Dublin - Logging Dublin Scope) | Portal: on AAF, MUSIC, OOM VID, Policy, SDC, AAI: on Portal | Portal: XL | Portal: Code | Portal: Not Committed APPC: Partial DCAE: Partial SDC: committed VID: Partial (depends on Portal) AAI: Partial | APPC: Please refer to M1 Planning template for details DCAE: Refer to DCAE R3 M1 Release Planning#PlatformMaturity for details AAI: Please refer to AAI R3 Platform Maturity | Portal: IBM (only forAngularupgrade - shown interest, but not committed yet) | Portal: 1) Looking for resources who can help with adhering logging standards, API versioning and kubernetes deployment of Portal dockers. 2) Furthermore, Portal requires a security expert in addressing angular upgrade to address the Nexus-IQ reported vulnerability (the angular upgrade its self is XL t-shirt size task). | ||
Security | Note: This does not cover what is in S3P. However, based on that it is expected to have a certificate or use CADI to get certificates to enable secure communication Pluggable authentication and Authorization (Use of CADI and ?):
Secure communication toxNFs(Security for 5G Use cases). DCAE, APPC, VFC? VNF requirements. (Secure Communication to Network Functions)
Vnf package security following SOL 004: SDC, VNFreqs, VNF SDC | CADI/AAF Integration: | Portal: on AAF Test coverage (js): (1) js Sonar plug-ins activation (2) min. 3 additional containers per application => Jenkins enhancements (3) Maven build to be updated DMaaP on AAF DCAE on AAF, OOM,DMAAP OOF on AAF | Portal (CADI): M DCAE: XL SDC: L Test coverage (js): All: M/L | Portal: Code SDC: code VID: Code | Portal: Not Committed APPC: Partial OOF: Partial DCAE: Not Committed SDC: Partial VID: Partial (depends on Portal) AAI: Partial | APPC: Please refer to M1 Planning template for details DCAE: Refer to DCAE R3 M1 Release Planning#PlatformMaturity table for open issues/question with current proposal OOF: Please see OOF Casablanca M1 Release Planning Template SDC: because of the size of the sdc source code we will be able to reach only 10% unit test coverage on the Javascript. VNF package security missing information. AAI: Please refer to AAI R3 Platform Maturity | Portal: Looking for resources who understand the AAF based certificate management to upgrade using CADI client in Portal. OOF: Need more clarity on AAF support for python projects in Casablanca | ||||
Upgrade (from Beijing to Casablanca) | All: XL | APPC: Not Committed CLAMP: Not Committed DCAE: Not Committed SDC: not commited VID: Not Committed AAI: Not committed | APPC, CLAMP, Portal, SDC, DCAE, VID, AAI: Lack of resources require additional information (does it include rollback, retrofit, no impact on run-time, etc)? | |||||||||
Architecture Alignment |
| DCAE on DMAAP (for DR) | DCAE:XL | DCAE:Partial Commit (New service committed based on Ericsson/Nokia) SDC: partial MultiVIM: Committed External API: Committed SO: Partially committed A&AI: partially committed CCSDK: committed | DCAE: DDS-VES and new analytic platform (FLINK) not committed due to resource. xNF-DCAE authentication not committed due to open issue listed under security. SDC: policy designer not planned for Casablanca, ETSI compliance only sol004 is planed. PNF suport will be done ontop of the existing capabilities. RTC stretch goal. DCAE-DS committed. Flow designer committed. ExtAPI: Interlude is a stretch goal SO: "decomposition" committed; "service instantiation" stretch goal A&AI: abstract topology sync-up committed | Reviewed and accepted at M3 reviews | ||||||
HEAT support | HEAT-based ONAP deployment support should be dropped once OOM-based ONAP deployment's issues are fully identified and resolved. Recommendation from TSC: keep supporting HEAT in Casablanca for testing and integration purposes. However, HEAT won't be a gating item at Release Sign-Off. | Portal: on OOM | Portal: S SDC:S | Portal: Code SDC: code | Portal: Not Committed APPC: Will support Heat partially OOF: Support HEAT for testing SDC:committed VID: Partially | Portal: See Risk #4 | Portal: Switching CSIT jobs from using HEAT based to OOM based requires resources who can understand the current setup. | |||||
Internationalization language support | Tao Shen |
| Design language/internationalization component in Portal and provideserviceapistopartnering apps like Policy, VID, SDC, AAI Note: This will need to go through the whole process (Architecture review,...) to understand whatthesdk will be providing and dependenciesonother ONAP project (Portal, SDC,...) As per Lingli and Tao from chinamobile, this is reviewed and approved by Arch Team. | UsecaseUI: on Portal | Portal: L | Portal: Code | Portal: Partial APPC: Not Committed CLAMP: Not Committed SDC: Not committed VID: Not committed | Portal: Limited resources | Portal: AT&T, ChinaMobile | Portal: Policy, VID, SDC, AAI can choose to use this Internationalization feature based on their capacity. Only UsecaseUI team is committed to develop and use this feature for now in Casablanca. | POSTPONED Due to lack of resource, this is postpone to Dublin Release | |
Testing |
| Most UI projects with javascript. Recommendation from TSC: This is related to Code Coverage: recommendation is to keep 50% Code Coverage for Casablanca including JavaScript. (In Beijing Release code coverage was only covering Java and Python code, not javascript) | Linux Foundation Unit test and CSIT coverage framework, Policy, VID, SDC, AAI: on Portal, DCAE (for JavaScript coverage) | Portal: XL SDC:S VID:S | Code: portal, SDC, VID | Portal: Partial (no Javascript) APPC: Partial, Java code will maintain 50%, no commitment for Javascript CLAMP: Partial, Java code will maintain 50%, no commitment for Javascript DCAE:Partial (except javascript) SDC: maintain 50% coverage for java and python add 10% coverage for UI(java script) VID: maintain 50% coverage for java add 10% coverage for UI (java script) AAI: Partial, Java code will maintain 50%, add 10% coverage for sparky (javascript) | Portal, APPC, CLAMP, DCAE: See Risk #1 | Portal: AT&T, IBM, TechM | ||||
modeling | Hui Deng | SDC: needs to support composite pattern in R3 SDC/SO/A&AI needs to support Service Order, Service Catalogue, service scaling Modeling runtime needs to be supported by A&AI in release 3 | SDC:not committed SO A&AI - changes to the run-time schema require significant refactoring in all of AAI's client applications. That refactoring might be planned and addressed in R4; for R3, perhaps mapping existing runtime schema to new model definitions can suffice? | SDC: late submission to the requirements for Casablanca, not clear on what are the requirements from sdc. |
T-Shirt Size: Ballpark estimation for assessing the development/testing activities performed by the project team; not the integration team
- XS - <4 Man/Weeks;
- S - ~6 Man/Weeks;
- M - ~8 Man/Weeks;
- L - ~12 Man/Weeks;
- XL - > 12 Man/Weeks.
13 Comments
Steven Wright
Not sure what category to put this in?
VNFRQTS received a comment captured in VNFRQTS-224 suggesting that VNF metadata be captured in YANG v1.1 My understanding ( and current VNF Requirements for the ONAP platform) currently supports YANG 1.0
I believe YANG 1.0 would need to continue to be supported. I am not sure what the impact of providing additional support of YANG 1.1 would be across the ONAP platform components - but I suspect that several components would be impacted. I expect onap would need to support YANG 1.1 at some stage - I'm just not sure if Casablanca is the appropriate release.
This seems to be an example of a somewhat finer grained feature alignment exercise than the features listed above. I expect there may be similar cases of upstream versioning upgrades that may be required from time to time. Is this the appropriate mechanism to get alignment on these?
Roger Maitland
There is some potential confusion around the DBaaS. OOM has already started this with our work towards common DB charts (see kubernetes/common) which will be shared across projects and optionally with shared instances if the project teams agree. MUSIC may have a role in geographic diversity but this doesn't necessarily imply DBaaS.
Bharath Balasubramanian
Roger,
From my understanding, when the MUSIC project was initially proposed, there were suggestions that we should be part of OOM. Both the MUSIC team and the OOM team at that time were clear that our roles were distinct: MUSIC will manage state and OOM will manage the entire life cycle management of components. Consistent with that, we believe that the MUSIC team should perform the role of DBaaS. That will also allow us to cluster these solutions more efficiently across sites – our main USP. We would welcome OOM's participation in the MUSIC project to help realize this.
What do you think?
"Tagging" other interested parties: Brian Freeman, Ryan Hallahan, Tim O'Keefe, Brian Freeman, Catherine Lefevre
Thanks,
Bharath.
Roger Maitland
We also agreed that use of MUSIC is optional for each team. The OOM team would be happy to help add MUSIC to kubernetes/common for project teams to use if they wish but there will be other options available (non Cassandra for example).
Bharath Balasubramanian
Absolutely! The MUSIC team is not proposing to enforce Cassandra on all teams. We wish to support MariaDB as a service (and in the future Postgres etc) as part of the MUSIC suite of solutions. The only difference is: if the MUSIC team says it supports MariaDB as part of its Dbaas solution, then we are responsible for integrating projects who wish to use MariaDB, ensure MariaDB is resilient, it scales out etc. We are willing to take this responsibility and believe it is part of state management. Does that make sense?
ramki krishnan
Hi Scott,
In the scaling use case, Multi-VIM/Cloud will also be impacted. SDN-C or APP-C should call Multi-VIM/Cloud to request additional resources for the scale out operation. Happy to chat more.
Thanks,
Ramki & Gil
Bin Yang
if nothing changed from Beijing release, Scaling will call Multi-VIM/Cloud API with the same one call by first time orchestration. In that case Mulit-VIM/Cloud should only be test only, no further code needed, hope this information could help evaluate the effort from multi-VIM/cloud perspective.
Scott Blandford
As part of the homing and capacity check OOF should call Multi-VIM/Cloud to determine if there are enough resources to do the scaling action. Neither SDNC nor APPC make scaling requests. At this point in time it doesn't look like the homing and capacity check will make it into Casablanca, so we have not updated that flow yet.
Bin Yang
FYI. The capacity check by OOF to Multi-VIM/Cloud is already implemented in Beijing Release and will be there in Casablanca Release. Multi-VIM/Cloud is not aware whether it is a capacity check for first time orchestration or scaling out.
So could you clarify the statement about "At this point in time it doesn't look like the homing and capacity check will make it into Casablanca" ?
Ryan Hallahan
After reviewing the S3P requirements with several PTLs, I've aggregated several pieces of feedback that require further detail/clarification before PTLs are able to commit. Tagging Jason Hunt as the owner of the deck, but welcome feedback from everyone.
For Slide 3:
1. The following requirement needs clarification prior to commitment:
Continuously retaining no critical or high known vulnerabilities > 60 days old
- Specifically, how is 60 days being measured (when does clock start/stop)? In particular, PTLs have asked how this timeframe works with our existing 6 month release cycle in ONAP (e.g., are we going to issue interim releases/patches, etc.?).
- Also, how are PTLs supposed to deal with false positives (is there a process in place for these?). What about vulnerabilities that get pulled in as part of other open source projects that ONAP projects use (e.g., ODL)?
2. The following requirement needs clarification prior to commitment:
All communication shall be able to be encrypted and have common rolebased access control and authorization.
- Specifically, what does this include. Is it just component-to-component API calls? More than that? PTLs have raised questions about securing things like like DMaaP topics and component calls to backend DBs like Cassandra, which may be difficult to secure at the moment?
- What about Python-based projects? AAF doesn’t have a Python client at the moment?
3. Can we please update the slide to move the following line into the “Stretch Goal” column as discussed at the F2F? It has caused some confusion.
Desired expectation is full CII badging silver level, if not 75% towards that.
For Slide 4:
4. Can we please enumerate somewhere what the “closed-loop projects” are that Level 2 applies to? This has been interpreted differently by various PTLs.
For Slide 6:
5. The following requirement needs clarification prior to commitment:
A component can be independently upgraded without impacting operation interacting components
6. The following requirement needs clarification prior to commitment:
Component configuration to be externalized in a common fashion across ONAP projects
- Is this a dynamic or immutable external configuration? Do we have a common approach, e.g., using config maps in kubernetes? Or will it vary for every single component?
7. For adherence to the ONAP Application Logging Specification v1.2, is there a proposal for how this will be measured? Are we expecting perfect 100% adherence, or perhaps a percentage (e.g., 80% adherence) should be the target for this release?
For Slide 7:
8. The following requirement needs clarification prior to commitment:
Projects contribute to end-to-end tutorials
- What is meant by E2E tutorial? How will this be measured? Who (what project) ultimately owns the tutorials that projects are contributing to?
Jason Hunt
Thanks for the thorough review Ryan Hallahan. Keeps us all on our toes!
As a general statement, I would like to ask the community to sign up as "owners" for each of the requirement categories to provide more clarification and supporting tools. Some will be easy (like the Security Subcommittee for the security requirements), but will need volunteers for others.
Rich Bennett
Jason Hunt and Ryan Hallahan comments on Slide 7 questions/answers...
What is meant by E2E tutorial?
The tutorial scope since R1 has included:
Would the documentation project be willing to own an E2E tutorial?
How could this be measured?
Vijay Venkatesh Kumar
Stephen Terrill/Security Team – Current security proposal presents couple of options for enabling security (direct AAF vs CADI for java vs Istio) - each requiring different level of effort though and some are language/platform specific. It will help to have recommendation for consistent solution rather than individual project needing to figure out different approaches. The presentation/WIKI link are also missing some key information on how the certificate (from AAF) will be distributed to support both dynamic and static deployed components in ONAP; and to enable mutual TLS between components in ONAP and external (e.g vnf/pnf) – what is recommended process to ensure respective client cert/trust are loaded?
The slidedeck has couple of WIP items – would appreciate if these can be addressed soon as it will help teams making their assessment.