...
- Clarify the benefits of ASD over the ETSI-NFV SOL001
- There was a meeting on feb-14th on the modeling subcommittee - no consensus reached - Modeling Subcommittee 2022-02-14
- Decision was to escalate the decision to the TSC. The request from the TSC is to enforce adherence to the modeling subcommittee procedure. Andy Mayer - CLEAN state is a result of a subcommittee decision, based on rough consensus. The poll is just an input to the rough consensus. Xu Yang - "rough consensus" means there are no un-addressed objections. Marian Darula - the objection cannot technically be resolved.
- Xu Yang - Based on input from ETSI experts, it may be possible to unify the models.
- Zu Qiang (Ericsson) - Why is there an attempt to create a single model/package? Xu Yang - There is no such limitation to have one model. The ASD model is referencing ETSI models. Therefore it seems that it should be possible to find a unified model. For example, the ASD may become part of the ETSI-NFV NSD. Thinh Nguyenphu - ASD is not "built around" ETSI models. It may reference ETSI, just like it may reference any other SDO. It may be a good idea to aspire for more alignment, but it is inappropriate to block progress on the ASD initiative. Requests to follow the letter of the governing document (Approved ONAP Model Governance), and decide based on the poll.
- Byung-Woo Jun - The PoC is using elements from ETSI, but cannot reconcile, as it will require changes in the ETSI specifications. The "ONAP Native" orchestration approach is planning to adopt ASD, and is also not using ETSI specs. Why not use the same approach for the ASD and allow it to exist as an alternative? Xu Yang - The ONAP Native approach was approved because there was no reference to ETSI and it seemed like a stand alone approach.
- Xu Yang - Expectation from the TSC - Decide whether the current ASD proposal is technically mature enough, or does it need more work for reconciliation with ETSI?
- Timo Perala - Is there an estimated expected time line for the potential ETSI NFV - ASD aligned solution? For all I know it may easily take until 2023 to get there.
- Catherine Lefevre - What if ETSI endorses the ASD? Byung-Woo Jun - It will require major changes in the ETSI MANO architecture, may take time as stated above.
- Xu Yang The ASD IM does make references to ETSI. There are references to Virtual Links for example.
- Zu Qiang (Ericsson) - ASD Information model does not make a reference to ETSI. It may use identical attribute names, but that can be changed to avoid confusion.
- Thinh Nguyenphu - TF (Catherine), ONAP MODCOM (Xu), ONAP-NFV Contact (Thinh) Bridge info: TBD Document depository: TBD (my recommendation is CNF TF wiki page) Tentative Agenda (information sharing and no decision making):
- - Brief update from ETSI-NFV project (5 minutes) Fernando Oliveira Byung-Woo Jun
- - Brief overview of CNF Direct project (5 minutes) Seshu Kumar Mudiganti and Lukasz Rajewski
- - Detail on ASD concept, IM/DM and packaging. (30 minutes)
- -
any update from ETSI NFV on CNF, since last update from LFN Developer 2022. (TBD) - - Q&A (20 minutes)
- - AoB
- Proposed date Feb-21st (President's day in the US) - Feb-28th may work better. Or Feb-22nd, during the timesloh of the CNF Taskforce meeting.
- Space for collaboration will be created is under the ONAP CNF Taskforce - CNF Taskforce ↔ ETSI collaboration
- Prepare for Joint workshop with ETSI-NFV regarding ASD
...