...
| # | Issue | Notes | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | How will hostname and port be provided when dmiPlugin register itself and its list of cmHandles with NCMP | The team thinks that the information should instead be provided in the form of a ‘host-name’ and a ‘port’ (there was some debate on service-name v. host-name but it was settled on host-name) e.g. "dmiPlugin" : { <host-name>, <port> } Where the host-name is unique. (the DB might assign an internal unique ID for each entry but that is just for indexing and x-referencing in a relation DB and this ID is not to be used/ exposed externally) | Instead of using ‘host-names’ and ‘ports’ parameters between java applications when in the cloud all we need is ‘service-names’ . The mapping of service-names to hosts and ports is done as part of the cloud configuration, in our case Kubernetes. And these are dynamic! The client application can then use a simple dns-lookup to connect to an instance of the service. Using service names also allows any plugin to use implement scaling as they see fit e.g. partitioning |
| 2 | Additional information in request body duplicates cmHandleId this is redundant information | Suggested to remove from request body to avoid possible error scenarios. | Only the one with the additionalInformation is needed and remove body |
| 3 | No need for Sync method, this is basic standard read operation at the root level for that cmHandle | ||
| 4 | Use include 'location' property when request yang-module sources | Suggestion: do include it in the request but allow dmiPlugin to decide to use it or now. Location (this leaf is called schema in older RFC7895) is not mandatory to support in YANG library and nodes may not include it. Another alternative presumably used also by ODL itself is the <get-schema> RPC. The key difference is that the YANG module definition is sent directly over the NETCONF channel, not requiring separate file servers and clients. So this is maybe one more reason that the ONAP DMI plugin currently doesn’t need the location attribute. | Location is not needed for any plugin and could only lead to ambiguity therefore will NOT be included in this request |
| 5 | Inconsistent use of "Operation" and/or HTTP Methods to distinguish write operations | Currently this page proposes to use "Operation=update" request body parameter for restconf "Replace" and "Patch" operations . It is not clear what HTTP Operation should be used for "Deltee" but RestFul API design would preclude a body for delete operationsand use the HTTP (RESTFul) operation to distinguish between them. It also proposes to use PUT HTTP for Read and Delete operations  Basically a very confusing an unintuitive use of HTTP operations to distinguish ambiguous operations that instead easily could be defined by just using the 'operation' field in the request body. | Proposal Toine: For Consistent (restful) design I would suggest to think as the operation to DMI-Plugin (always with body) as "creating a new order to do something" toward DMI-Plugin. Ie always a HTTP POST (or PUT?) operation. The "operation " in the body can simple be extended to include both "update" and "patch" as required. If the 'operation' is NOT supplied "read" wil be assumed as the default operation See also CPS-577: Prepare the request from client and send write request to dmi-plugin |
...