This document is a first step in soliciting input from the LFN End User Advisory Group (EUAG). It is meant to identify common concerns of EUAG members as well as encourage group members to channel their feedback to the use case subcommittee and TSC.

Latest version: 


v.1 Initial draft


Feel free to suggest modifications/additions in the comments section of this wiki page.


October 4th 2018 - Second revision of the survey, based on community feedback.

Highlight of changes - Removed "modularity" from scoring table and added it as a separate topic. Added extensibility to table, Added multiple choice for modularity, added question regarding vendor incentive.


October 9th 2019 - Third revision

Added containerized VNFs question

  • No labels

7 Comments

  1. Chaker Al-Hakim

    My comment is regarding the definition of “Modularity” in your survey. We spent significant amount of time at the architecture tiger  team meeting (Oct, 02, 2018) debating the definition. You may want to wait for Stephen T.,  Parviz and other members to weigh in before you send the survey out.

  2. ramki krishnan

    It may be worth adding another line as follows under  “Please choose which best describes your company’s strategic approach to ONAP”

    • We are committed to leverage some components of ONAP for our network service. We are currently making some progress towards this.

  3. Prakash Ramchandran

    End User Advisory Group (EUAG) in LFN was conceived to address pain points for Service Providers to define user stories they like to see taken up in community under different LFN Projects. If that's the intent  Company in this survey I assume will be  Service Provider. It would be fair to add a question to the SPs what do they offer as  incentive to enable build strong and diverse suppliers in participating to make ONAP better in the long run.

  4. Srinivasa Addepalli

    Modularity & Function decomposition work can be very big. So, it is good to get EUAG feedback on the granularity levels they like to see. 

    Following are some of the high level functions.

    1. ONAP Pre-onboard function
    2. ONAP Design function
    3. ONAP run time function 
    4. ONAP run time function with application configuration
    5. ONAP Analytics function
    6. ONAP closed loop function

    It is good to feedback from EUAG on the functions they like to leverage independently.

    Srini


  5. user-67d6f

    shall we add https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensibility  as another measure, which would help vendors and providers to extend by means of NBI or SBI very clearly. 

    Black-box approach would be a best one among.

  6. Srinivasa Addepalli

    Hi Ranny,

    Thanks for this effort.

    There is another item which we would like to gauge interest from EUAG that how interested they are on ONAP supporting containerized VNFs using Kubernetes.

    Srini

    1. Ranny Haiby

      I thought the obvious answer will be "Yes" across the board (wink)
      I will add this to the survey.