...
| # | Description | Notes | Decision | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | No Event properties defined for DMI AVC Event | Priyank Maheshwari will need to specify and agreed event structure for DMI AVC Event with stakeholders ie. provide Jira ticket | Event Body should be compatible with RFC8641 kieran mccarthy has confirmed. Priyank Maheshwari created JIRA to create the event body schema. | ||||||||||||||||
| 2 | Bulk Operation events details have not yet be defined (just headers) | Sourabh Sourabh to provide Jira tickets |
| ||||||||||||||||
| 3 | Should all the events have same Headers | kieran mccarthy Possibly Common (base) set of headers but mandatory aspect might differ. In practice we might need a separate headers (schema?) for each event | |||||||||||||||||
| 4 | Clarify the format of the version eventSchemaVersion |
EX: 1.0.0 (without 'v') | kieran mccarthy to check ORAN preference kieran mccarthy confirms through email on to use semantic versioning which ORAN follows https://semver.org. | ||||||||||||||||
| 5 | What to do with additional event headers (from DMI Plugins) | kieran mccarthy if DMI produce additional headers NCMP will discard those i.e. not included in forwarded events | |||||||||||||||||
| 6 | Event(Content) field in DMI Async Request Response Event has inconsistent name (compared with other schemas) |
| CPS Team Create a V2 of the schema and rename eventContent as | ||||||||||||||||
| 7 | NCMP Async Request Response Event (#5) contains both an Event and ForwardedEvent | ForwardedEvent is not wrapped inside Event but question now is if we need 2 events at all?! Sourabh Sourabh and Raviteja Karumuri can check how it is actually working and then we decide (create a JIRA ticket) Wiki for the Study on NCMPAsyncRequestResponse event schema Conclusion: events not designed as proposed, very inconsistent. Never go a bug because these async events aren't used at all (confirmed by Csaba Koscis) Instead bulk request wil be used for topology use cases. | kieran mccarthy and team agreed to:
| ||||||||||||||||
| 8 | Dmi Data AVC Event, use of eventSource field | Priyank Maheshwari wanted to store 'datastore' in this field but kieran mccarthy eXplained it to use for different purposes | kieran mccarthy Clients can use this field as per their requirements. | ||||||||||||||||
| 9 |
|
| |||||||||||||||||
| 10 | Depending #10 can schema inherit/eXtend a common schema for common headers | Commonly define them and then define what are mandatory(required) or optional as per the schema eXtending it. If a field is not used in the eXtended schema then it should be able to handle it. EXtend the POC (on #9) to cover this. Priyank Maheshwari did the POC and the conclusion of that was that :-
| Toine Siebelink agrees to go ahead with separate schema/headers per event. There will be some duplication but it will have its advantage when versioning. | ||||||||||||||||
| 11 | Is anyone using Async Request feature? | See
| Csaba Kocsis confirmed this is not used by Ericsson currently. No plans to use soon for single-cmhandle requests either (TBC). Need to decide priority (Csaba Kocsis to find out of fiXing the legacy schema(s) | ||||||||||||||||
| 12 | Do we need additionalProperties for DMI ASync Data Request respondes (events #4, #5) | The original code populates a framework defined 'additionalProperties' field with a singel key-value pair: "response-data",{<json data>}. No other (private) properties are added either in DMI PLugin or NCMP code. The name is just coincidence and misleading. In fact this 'additionalProperties' field should NOT have been used at all! | No, the new schema should NOT add 'additionalProperties' field at all use 'additionalProperties:no' in the schema | ||||||||||||||||
| 13 | AVC Subscription Event (DMI → NCMP) (events #3) |
| In meeting kieran mccarthy updated #3 is ON HOLD to analyse further. Agreed with Toine Siebelink on that Priyank Maheshwari will look into this from now as they are working on something related to this. | ||||||||||||||||
| 14 | Align headers with CNCF Cloud Events | Using standard headers as defined by Cloud Events and possibly common header eXtension See Table below, CNFC Cloud Event alignment CPS will use Cloud Events 3PP for all current and legacy events to ensure common format | kieran mccarthyand Toine Siebelink agreed on general idea but eXact list of common headers need to be agreed
| ||||||||||||||||
| 15 | During the meeting we saw that the Header fields were prefiXed with "ce_" (or "ce0") so need to check if we are ok with that. | assume "ce_" can be used as all user of the CNCF lib will get this behavio., will check id it can be replaced with no prefiX at all. Need to check with kieran mccarthy for way forward. | |||||||||||||||||
| 16 | Do will still need/ can we still use schemas for header details with CNCF library ?! | How to publish info about non-standard headers like correlationid ? | Meeting on Team agreed refer to CNFC doc. and add list of eXtensions extensions in RTD documentation. (key and value constraints) | ||||||||||||||||
| 17 | Inconsistent casing convention for header fields v. json data fields | Just observing. All header ion CNCF are lowercase whereas json field are camelCase. Don't want to change but want to make sure agree... | Meeting on Team agreed this is the way it is and Toine Siebelink will update to CPS Style | page||||||||||||||||
| 18 | Confirm 'source'. is to be added to ALL events (declared mandatory for CNFC events) |
...