High Level
The POMBA code and containers are an implementation of a model based audit where logging transaction tracing would assist this new audit code in determining the differences and causes of any discrepancy between the model intent and the reality of VNF orchestrations.
Actions
A new set of new microservices around orchestration model based auditing are being proposed as an addition to the logging project and up sourced into ONAP for the Casablanca release.
A meeting with the architecture subcommittee is planned for the 29th of May.https://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-discuss/2018-May/009660.html
Jon Taylor and Geora Barsky (assisting) and Sharon Chisholm (assisting) will presenting the proposed architecture along with myself.
Team members
In addition to the current logging team members
Sanjay
The following additional team members - the majority of which currently work/have-worked on SDNC like the clustering and federation work in ONAP will also support the scope change work.
Geora Barsky (sniro)
Phillip Leigh
Vitaly Lavrusevich
With additional ongoing support/work from the OOM project
Plan
Cover off all the items identified in the scope change epic, including overlap with other projects, what we require from other projects and what other projects may require from us in terms of API.
- LOG-192Getting issue details... STATUS
The POMBA microservices will require their own sub repo - ideally per/container as a sub-project of logging. See https://gerrit.onap.org/r/#/admin/projects/logging-analytics,branches - raising LF ticket
6 Comments
Michael O'Brien
also posted to the wiki
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Architecture+Subcommittee
https://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-discuss/2018-May/009659.html
Chris,
Can we delay the scope change meeting for logging until next week – the 22nd.
I understand the Architecture team is at a conference next week – so likely we will do this scope change on the 29th in 2 weeks.
Can I request the first hour – as we have our logging meeting in the 2nd hour of the Arch meeting
Thank you
/michael
From: onap-tsc-bounces@lists.onap.org [mailto:onap-tsc-bounces@lists.onap.org] On Behalf Of Michael O'Brien
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:41 AM
To: Christopher Donley (Chris) <Christopher.Donley@huawei.com>; onap-discuss@lists.onap.org; onap-tsc <onap-tsc@lists.onap.org>
Subject: [onap-tsc] [ARCH] Request scope change review: POMBA introduction in Logging project for Casablanca
Chris,
Hi, the logging project would like to introduce a proposed scope change for Casablanca – we would like to pass these adjustments by the architecture subcommittee and the community before meeting the use case subcommittee.
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/POMBA
The expanded clickable team member list is on the sub page
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Logging+Scope+Change+for+POMBA+seed+code#LoggingScopeChangeforPOMBAseedcode-Teammembers
I would expect 15 min.
1) Jon Fannar Karlsson Taylor and Sharon Chisholm will be presenting
2) Heads up review of the architecture proposal, the new microservices, new API capabilities provided by the audit, any overlap with other projects, requirements on other projects and use case discussion
This meeting is separate from the ongoing review of the Logging specification and implementation under the following that we discussed at last week’s Architecture meeting
https://jira.onap.org/browse/ONAPARC-148
Let us know if there are any additional requirements.
Thank you
/michael
Michael O'Brien
Notes for Tue meet with Arch SC
Michael O'Brien
20180529: Arch review notes - Jon Taylor presenting - Duration: 55 min - 43 participants
From zoom
From Me to Everyone: 10:04 AM
https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/POMBA original Arch Review request - onap-discuss -fyi https://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-discuss/2018-May/009660.html
From Me to Everyone: 10:21 AM
We will need to align with Multivim work in C* for example the Azure work in progress - as an undercloud abstraction
From Sharon Chisholm (Amdocs) to Everyone: 10:22 AM
It may not be ready.
From Stephen Terrill to Everyone: 10:32 AM
It seems like the assurance scoped to the could infra. Buidling assurance ontop of ONAP, won't it have to do the same things again?
From Sharon Chisholm (Amdocs) to Everyone: 10:33 AM
Assurance should be based on the state of services, QoS metrics, etc. That isn't what POMBA is necessarily doing.
From Ranny Haiby to Everyone: 10:34 AM
Agree with @Stephen Terrill - POMBA seem to have a role as part of ONAP assurance
From Stephen Terrill to Everyone: 10:35 AM
not necessarily agreeing there; that is correct for the application level scope. HOwever for the cloud level scope it seems to overlapp.
From Sharon Chisholm (Amdocs) to Everyone: 10:37 AM
Whether it is labelled as part of Logging or part of assurance probably matters less than the fact that the problem being solved is important.
From Stephen Terrill to Everyone: 10:39 AM
Right - the point I was trying to get to is the functional allocation of this functionality in the architecture.
From Chris Donley to Everyone: 10:39 AM
To me, it feels like this should be a separate project, with ties into logging, DCAE, and possibly others.
From Stephen Terrill to Everyone: 10:41 AM
Or it looks like a use case with parts in DCAE, SO, Logging, ...
From Yoav Kluger (Amdocs) to Everyone: 10:41 AM
definitely an option Chris. We were wary of he vast number of projects in ONAP ..
From Chris Donley to Everyone: 10:44 AM
Yoav, I think it will make the project and scope management easier to have this separated out. We're actually pretty small in the number of projects compared to ODL, OPNFV, etc. We have some room, if it's warranted.
From Yoav Kluger (Amdocs) to Everyone: 10:44 AM
OK, this is good input
From Stephen Terrill to Everyone: 10:45 AM
I think that would be promiting a vertical stack to point provide this capability in stead of building it into the architecture
From Chris Donley to Everyone: 10:47 AM
There probably needs to be an entity (with a CLI, etc.) to kick off this process, and then potentially other pieces in related projects. From the presentation, I don't see it fully contained in existing projects.
From Stephen Terrill to Everyone: 10:51 AM
Presenting the service state?
From PARVIZ Yegani to Everyone: 10:51 AM
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/aws-technical-content/latest/microservices-on-aws/auditing.html
From Me to Everyone: 10:53 AM
notes here and auditory on the note at the end of https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Logging+Scope+Change+for+POMBA+seed+code?focusedCommentId=33067952&refresh=1527605584829#comment-33067952 thank you very much team for the discussion
From Kevin McDonnell (Huawei) to Everyone: 10:54 AM
Good link...my take is POMBA is not trying to be a Cloudtrail or CloudWatch...but something less ambitious... I think its firstly a diagnostic tool..
From Me to Everyone: 10:54 AM
Parvis I am all in on AWS - reviewing link
From Kevin McDonnell (Huawei) to Everyone: 10:54 AM
in order of increasing ambition. Diagnostic, Audit, Discovery, Audit_Compliance+Verification and finally Assurance...
From PARVIZ Yegani to Everyone: 10:55 AM
Tnx Michael.
Michael O'Brien
20180612: arch meet - Sharon Chisholm presenting
From Raghu Ranganathan to Everyone: 10:28 AM
sharon - is the primary reason to get context from multiple entities due to different models?
Stephen, (PTL)
Place POMBA in logging project - approved
Scope change document must be passed by the TSC
Need impact statement for each ONAP component - phased (short term context builders in logging project - over time moved out to other projects
Stephen
The analysis part may need to be part of the dcae project in the future
TSC vote tomorrow
https://lists.onap.org/pipermail/onap-discuss/2018-June/010323.html
TSC 2018-06-14
Michael O'Brien
Approved at 0510 on 20180621 in Beijing GMT+8
TSC 2018-06-21 (Beijing)
Michael O'Brien
Team, Gildas, we discussed the zip issue some more - (zip files not allowed in git), we decided that since SDC works with tosca zip files then to fully test our interaction with SDC we need to be able to have zip files available to the testing framework - changing this review off -1 for zip submission Note: we should document this decision for the future when an audit of the code is done - I will send a mail to onap-discuss but it would be good if the javadoc of the testcase explained this zip requirement so we can link to git from the review, jira and release review
LOG-522 - Getting issue details... STATUS
https://gerrit.onap.org/r/#/c/57083/3/src/test/resources/toscaModel.csar.zip,unified