Versions Compared

Old Version 14

changes.mady.by.user Catherine Lefevre

Saved on

compared with

New Version 15

changes.mady.by.user Jonathan Gathman

Saved on

Key

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

...

AreaActual LevelTargeted Level for current ReleaseHow, EvidencesComments
Performance12 (Stretch Target may not reach)1Note: AAF audit trails all transactions. With Dublin, we want to add additional Performance testing in ONAP, not just originating company. It will take time to pull in ONAP recommended monitoring.
  • 0 -- none
  • 1 – baseline performance criteria identified and measured
  • 2 & 3 – performance improvement plans created & implemented
Stability232Note: AAF has clean record of Uptime in initial Company. Only need to finish work to have this happen in K8S, 3 and beyond. However, there may not be time to prove this in Dublin
  • 0 – none
  • 1 – 72 hours component level soak w/random transactions
  • 2 – 72 hours platform level soak w/random transactions
  • 3 – 6 months track record of reduced defect rate
Resiliency232Note: Will be demonstrating AAF Locator as a tool for all ONAP to gain GEO RedundancySee AAF Locator
  • 0 – none
  • 1 – manual failure and recovery (< 30 minutes)
  • 2 – automated detection and recovery (single site)
  • 3 – automated detection and recovery (geo redundancy)
Security22CII Badge: https://bestpractices.coreinfrastructure.org/en/projects/2303
  • 0 – none
  • 1 – CII Passing badge + 50% Test Coverage
  • 2 – CII Silver badge; internal communication encrypted; role-based access control and authorization for all calls
  • 3 – CII Gold
Scalability232AAF Locator changes pattern we have brought in with AAF allows for High Scale . Will be bringing to Architectureand Resiliency. We are working on combining that within the context of OOM, etc. If accepted and implemented, will bring all users quickly to Massive GEO Scaling, and multi-ONAP Instances, multi-ONAP Clusters. However, part of the work is bring this up to Architecture during the Dublin Timeframe.
  • 0 – no ability to scale
  • 1 – single site horizontal scaling
  • 2 – geographic scaling
  • 3 – scaling across multiple ONAP instances
Manageability11It is possible that in doing other OOM integration, we'll improve this as a matter of courseWill be looking at ONAP Logging.
  • 1 – single logging system across components; instantiation in < 1 hour
  • 2 – ability to upgrade a single component; tracing across components; externalized configuration management
Usability12 (Stretch, depends on def of Usability Testing)1We will continue working on Documentation, and helping Apps start up with AAF. https://docs.onap.org/en/casablanca/guides/onap-provider/index.html
  • 1 – user guide; deployment documentation; API documentation
  • 2 – UI consistency; usability testing; tutorial documentation

...