Versions Compared

Old Version 10

changes.mady.by.user Alexander Vul

Saved on

compared with

New Version 11

changes.mady.by.user Arun Gupta

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Panel
borderColorRed

Please put your @name in one of the option column and provide any comments you might have.

Option 1Option 2Option 3Poll Comments

Xu Yang



Prefer to align with IFA names to ease the implementation



Kevin Scaggs
  • IFA is not consistent
  • The turn-around time in IFA to make updates is slow
  • We should not limit ourselves to just ETSI standard  
  • We should lead in setting standards, not just follow
  • You may recall we earlier discussed that we would not follow and adhere to just one industry standard, but make use of whatever standard from whatever standard body that solved the issue at hand.   Option 1 is in opposition to that approach.


Arun Gupta
  • What Kevin wrote.

  • Feedback to ETSI about changes should be after we have a working implementation that uses the data model.

    Added by ?

  • Seems like the most expedient way forward..
  • It would be good to adopt a set of conventions from one of the SDOs that have them, and apply it consistently across ONAP.


Andy MayerWe have an opportunity in ONAP to correct the inconsistencies in the IFA011 model and provide feedback to ETSI. We will ensure that we track any name changes and provide proper mapping back to the original IFA011 names.


Alexander Vul

Given our intent for a "best of breed" approach in the standards space, having our own conventions would be helpful....