1 Problem Statement

Motivation

To perform an indepth analysis of the current TOSCA types as defined and supported in SDC, and use it as input for the feasibility assessement and requirement analysis for implementing ONAP Generic Tosca Parser to be used by different consumers in run time dealing with TOSCA CSARs packages either externally onboarded via External API or internally distributed from SDC.

Analysis input

Mainly focus on the TOSCA types currently included and used in SDC which can be found  in https://gerrit.onap.org/r/gitweb?p=sdc.git;a=tree;f=catalog-be/src/main/resources/import/tosca;hb=refs/heads/master,  except the heat-types (directory)

References

The analysis is based on the following specifications :

[TOSCA-YAML-1.2TOSCA Simple Profile YAML 1.2 Referecne:  http://docs.oasis-open.org/tosca/TOSCA-Simple-Profile-YAML/v1.2/TOSCA-Simple-Profile-YAML-v1.2.html  

[SOL001]                   ESTI NFV-SOL 001 V2.5.1 Reference: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-SOL/001_099/001/02.05.01_60/gs_NFV-SOL001v020501p.pdf  

                                                           https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-SOL/001_099/001/02.05.01_60/gs_NFV-SOL001v020501p0.zip (YAML definitions)

[TOSCA-NFV]            TOSCA Simple Profile YAML NFV 1.0 Referecne:  http://docs.oasis-open.org/tosca/tosca-nfv/v1.0/tosca-nfv-v1.0.html   

Note: (According to shitao liTOSCA-NFV's conent has already been incorporated by the early version of  [SOL001], and no longer being updated).

Methodology: Analysis by different types

2 Analysis Output

According to the analysis results, the model problems found can be summarized into four categories:

  • A :  Not comply with tosca grammar 
    This classification is used to record types that don't comply with the basic tosca  syntax specification
  • B1:  Not comply with existing TOSCA-simple-YAML-1.2
  • B2: Not comply with existing SOL001-v2.5.1
    Type definitions quite like the types which defined in specification, but still have some difference, such as base type difference, property difference, etc
  • C:  SDC private extension 
    This classification is used to record SDC private extension 

  • D:  Use Case private extension
    This classification is used to record  the extension types which used to support specific use case 

2.1 Analysis Statistics and Suggestion

Class Type Number which belongs to this classThe Issue ExampleSuggestion
A3

annotation_types:

SDC
org.openecomp.annotations.Source:
    description: Indicates the origin source of an input
    properties:
        source_type:
          type: string
        vf_module_label:
          type: list
          description: List of VF Modules this input was originated from
          entry_schema:
            type: string
        param_name:
            type: string
            description: Source parameter name

Missing derived_from in the definition

Recommendation: Fix it to align with the correct TOSCA grammar as defined in [TOSCA-YAML-1.2] in Dublin Release.


B

58

B1 14

B1 issue example:

Recommendation: Fix it to align with the TOSCA normative types as defined in [TOSCA-YAML-1.2] in Dublin Release

B2: 44

B2 issue example:


Proposal: Fix it to align with the latest SOL001 spec [SOL001] in Dublin Release

C90

Grammar is complied with TOSCA spec, but defined by SDC only, those are not included in TOSCA spec or SOL001 spec.

Proposal: To be aligned with the coming target internal DM (ONAP Target Internal DM (TIDM), Base Proposal)

D17

Grammar is complied with TOSCA spec, but defined and used by SDC for a specific use case or vendor, those are not included in TOSCA spec or SOL001 spec.

Proposal: To be aligned with the coming target internal DM (ONAP Target Internal DM (TIDM), Base Proposal)

  • Which types have to be kept ?
  • Which types can be replaced by the TOSCA normative types as defined in tosca-simple-profile-yaml or NFV types as defined in SOL001

2.2 Options to fix the above issues

Option

Description

Minimal GoalFix A and B (including B1 and B2) in Dublin release based on [TOSCA-YAML-1.2] and [SOL001]
Stretch Goal

Fix all the issues (A, B, C and D) in Dublin release, and prioritize types that belong to C and D when designing the new target internal DM (TIDM)

2.3 Considerations for TIDM Design and Generic Parser Implementation

The rules for designing TIDM and implementing generic parser have to be considered and decided in Dublin release, e.g.,

  1. Compliant with TOSCA standards, so that Issue A and B1 have to be avoided
  2. Compliant with ETSI NFV SOL standards, i.e. B2 should align with the SOL001 spec
  3. C should be covered and priortized by TIDM
  4. D should be covered and priortized by TIDM


All the existing Data model should be managed and published by modeling subcommittee,and modeling subcommittee also need consider how to manage the different version of model.



  • No labels

5 Comments

  1. I would rather split this into two different topics:

    1. Violations of the TOSCA grammar
    2. Update of the normative types

    Below I am going to address these two topics with two different replies. This way we can have a separate discussion thread on each.

  2. TOSCA Grammar violations

    It is true that the TOSCA documents generated by SDC are not always fully compliant with the TOSCA language specs.  The most serious case is the 'annotation_type' clause. This TOSCA extension was created before AT&T joined ONAP. As long as AT&T owned both the TOSCA generator and the TOSCA parser, this extension was handled without any problem. The problems started when the ONAP community started applying other parsers.  I can see 2 possible options to resolve this case:

    1. Make SDC stop generating this clause. This may cause failures in SO, AI&I and other run-time components.
    2. Make the VF-C TOSCA parser more tolerant to this extension (and maybe to any other extension). For example, instead of aborting processing on an unsupported clause, the parser could just emit a warning and then go on parsing the rest of the source document.
  3. Normative type update

    Well, many normative types have been updated since their introduction.

    The simplest way, as I see it, would be to just upload the new definitions into the SDC catalog in Dublin, and see where the smoke rises. I am pretty sure that SDC will not be affected by the change, but I am less sure about the run-time components.

    A more careful approach is to show the upcoming changes to the run-time PTLs before the change (smile)

    The change can become very expensive if we will find that the update requires migration of already existing models...

    1. created  SDC-2090 - Getting issue details... STATUS  to track this normative type update issue

      1. hello, Lianhao Lu Question: what is the expected impacts on the SDC? Is it on service template only? Or any impacts on VF csar or VSP csar? any impacts on the vendor provided on boarding csar file?