Page History

Beijing Feedback

In order to plan for the proper Platform Maturity requirements and levels for Casablanca, we would like to gather feedback from the community.  We welcome feedback from all, but especially:

• Project Teams (PTL or representative)
• ONAP Operators

As a reminder, the Beijing requirements can be found at Platform Maturity Requirements (aka Carrier Grade).  The summary of priorities and levels are at Platform Maturity Level proposal 13Dec2017v2.pdf

Project Team Feedback Requested

The type of feedback we would welcome from project teams includes:

• What worked well in Beijing?
• What could be improved?
• Where could you use help in platform, tools, education?
• Specific feedback on any particular requirement areas?

Operator Feedback Requested

From operators, we would welcome the following feedback:

• Which platform maturity requirement areas are important to you in implementing ONAP?
• Are there requirements not currently included that you would like to see included?

Please leave your feedback as comments to this wiki page.

THANK YOU!

Security Subcommittee Feedback

• Please see this presentation for the recommended Casablanca changes for security.

Architecture Subcommittee Feedback (from Vancouver Session)

• Stability: 72 hours platform level soak with random transaction. (not just component-level, such as we did for Beijing). TSC has to approve this. We have to understand the resources needed for this, as it may require more lab resources.
• Resiliency: level 3 for run-time projects (proposal). N/C for design-time projects
• Security: see above from Security Subcommittee
• Scalability: stay level for 1 run-time. Horizontal scaling up and down.
• Manageability: level 2 for upgrade a single cpt (1 cpt at a time) with no loss of data.
• Usability: more discussion with wider group needed

Presentation for the discussion session held 20June2018 in Beijing.  

Presentation as presented to TSC on 21June2018:

Updates to presentation based on feedback from the TSC: