Project as part of CCSDK ( Yuriy Malakov  )

• ACTION: Sandeep Shah Presentation of new architecture with CCSDK.
• (DONE): Architecture CCSDK component: ARC Controller Component Description – Frankfurt added in Section 6 System deployment architecture. Separate container. Added to Diagram. Updated Section 7 New Release Capabilities & Linked to U/C page.
• ACTION: Development demo & progress in use on OOF/PCI/SON Use Case. Validation tool & generation of schemas/tables of input conditions of yang model. Basis for Data Model 3GPP TS28.541/28.540. Planned SQL Schema model driven database work. Once we have schema can SDNR update/provision the schema. Can parsing code be model driven. (1) ORAN Yang models & data schema not available yet (waiting) & 5G Service Modeling U/C: 3GPP TS28.541/TS28.540. maps to a data structure we want to support. (2) can proceed to Dockerize solution. R4 MariaDB solution. could extend the model. (3) Review work from Ted.
  

In release requirements page: M4 March 5, 2020

Frankfurt Release Requirements (TSC has already approved Green status for U/C).

CCSDK, SDN-C - Dan Timoney MVP (min viab. product) discussed on SDN-C call. Req not totally clear, schema model. Take what is in ConfigDB; finalize the Data Model approach.

• (DONE):  CCSDK Jira ticket for RTCfgDB into CCSDK - CCSDK-1963 - Getting issue details... STATUS
  
• ACTION: Convert yang model in SDN-R to be used into CCSDK. RTCfgDB will be used for OOF/SON/PCI first. Yang model as used by OOF/SON/PCI to convert. Yang model from SDN-R > CCSDK. SDN-C gets yang model from SDC. Yang to SQL. Need to have 1 Yang model. Martin Skorupski
  The topic will be discussed at SDN-R call 2020-02-26: 
• ACTION: Activity #1 Wipro team doing a CMNotify mock-up (demo). Sandeep Shah  ; place on DMaaP and have them parse. VES mock-up version 7.2. Not changing the VES Collector (R7). RAN-Simulator (input); Activity #2: Nokia offered to contribute the code to support the additional domain & routing & processing of CMNotify VES events in DMaaP (R7).

• STEP 1: xNF (RAN Simulator) GENERATES a VES CMNotify - Wipro SON (R6)
  
• STEP 2: DCAE VES Collector RECEIVES the CMNotify - Nokia (R7)
  
• STEP 3: DCAE PROCESSES Event- Nokia (R7)
  
• STEP 4: DCAE PUBLISHES onto DMaaP - Nokia (R7)
  
• STEP 5: CCSDK (Controller) LISTENS to DMaaP - Sandeep Shah  (R6)
  
• STEP 6: RTCfgDB UPDATES with info - Sandeep Shah / Techmahindra Devendra Chauhan (R6) 
  

• ACTION: CMNotify VES Review https://gerrit.onap.org/r/c/vnfrqts/requirements/+/100876  (VES Event Reg review) and https://gerrit.onap.org/r/c/vnfrqts/requirements/+/100867 (VES Event Listener review)
  VES 7.1 review. Trevor processing comments. Reviewers want= to see reworked document.
  
• ACTION: Common Header - David Smith calling meeting talk about how to harmonize / modify common header to deal with notifications to standard bodies. SA5 taken action defining VES events (not good). ONAP should control population of common header. SA5 to change info (CR). Meeting for a high level proposal. Nokia/ ATT/ Orange/ Ericsson. Working towards presentation to ONAP. 3GPP solution to submit CR. Vimal, Marge, Cormac, Damian. NEXT STEP: Follow up call. Deadline: in time for R7.

RunTime Config DB Project Proposal (Oct 25 2019)

Project Proposal work to be done during R6. Project Proposal for R7.

Presentation at Arch S/C and TSC during R6.

• ACTION: For Performance (#@#) open items to get ballpark figures for # API requests.
• ACTION: find out the Lifecycle State "enumerations"
• ACTION: PTL
• ACTION: TSC / key points in project proposal that must be addressed for them to be considered as a project. Questions that might be asked that need answer. Mandatory fields filled out. Brian Freeman
• ACTION: What is our deadline?

• ACTION: Find PTL who wants to lead the RTCfgDB Project as independent component.

Email from Dan Timoney 14 Nov 2019 

My understanding from Sandeep was that this work was very much a stretch for Frankfurt.  So, I’m okay with work starting in Frankfurt, as long as its structured so that it’s a separable component (i.e. as long as, if it’s not completed in Frankfurt, the platform is not fundamentally broken). I would NOT support creating a separate repository, since there is a fair amount of overhead involved in maintaining each repository on an ongoing basis – both machine and human resources.  The Linux Foundation itself has been pushing back on the number of repositories the ONAP projects have and there is now a new approval process needed in order to add new ones.  If a new repository is needed, then this team will need to convince me why no existing repository can be used AND will need to provide a resource who is willing to maintain that repository (i.e dealing with security vulnerabilities; policing code coverage ; doing release builds, etc).