...
| # | Issue | Notes | Decision | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Which operation(s) need support for multiple cm handles? |
if many what is the priority? | agreed with kieran mccarthy Only Get (read) (in future other operations might be support batch option too) | ||||||||||||
| 2 | Which datasources should be supported? | Do we need to support passthrough-only no-cached() data only ? | agreed with kieran mccarthy : all passthrough datastores will be supported Not implemented (yet) response, for non passthrough datastores | ||||||||||||
| 3 | URL pattern for NCMP bulk endpoints | We had an internal review with some of our rApp colleagues around some of the recent proposed NCMP batch interface and they came back with some valid comment. The proposal is that we should not distinguish batch from bulk or other flavors of read/write. The aim is to only have a single flavor of interface for read or write for clients. Therefore the proposal is to drop “batch” from the interface URL and just act toward “data” | Agreed with team kieran mccarthy | ||||||||||||
| 4 | keep datastore, topic and optional parameters in the URL itself instead into body. | CPS prefers keep interface similar as single cm handle interface (consistency and cost) Existing : ...&topic=topicParamInQuery | agreed with kieran mccarthy : Follow the existing interfaces as much as possible for consistency and efficiency | ||||||||||||
| 5 | support in ONAP DMI-plugin | agreed with Toine Siebelink : ONAP plugin can respond with not implemented yet code, | |||||||||||||
| 6 | Response always Async ie. topic is compulsory ? | Assume topic is compulsory (defined in OPenApi) → Response therefore wil be 400 if not supplied | Agreed with kieran mccarthy : Topic is optional but system will respond with 'Not implemented (yet when not specified or blank | ||||||||||||
| 7 | Should NCMP Amalgamate Async responses from DMI-Plugin before forwarding ? | step 6 in flow diagram | Agreed with kieran mccarthy : NCMP wil only forward to client topic no handling tracking or any responses or status of request | ||||||||||||
| 8 | Handle non responding dmi-plugin | Agreed with kieran mccarthy : | |||||||||||||
| 9 | Should (can) NCMP check if 'MyTopic' specified by client exist | Consider Access Control too. For now NCMP can log error. Client is responsible for topic setup | Agreed with kieran mccarthy : | ||||||||||||
| 10 | How to handle non-existing CM-Handles (id) | Suggestions
| Agreed with kieran mccarthy : Additional error (messages) response with all cm-handles that cannot be resolved, also a separate error message wil be sent for each failed DMI | ||||||||||||
| 11 | Overlap/clash with Deutsche Telekom user story:
| discussed in weekly ONAP meeting the DT user story is affect CPS-Core interface (not NCMP) and the requirement is to execute a query over ALL cm-handles (cached only?!) instead of a given list of cm-handles (~anchors) | |||||||||||||
| 12 | Schema of bulk response
| 1) Agreement required on the structure of the response. Please see response structure below. | Need to follow schema structure there in #15 under Issues & Decisions section and it is agreed on | ||||||||||||
| 13 |
|
| Agreed on to keep one schema for both events (DMI → NCMP) and (NCMP → ClientApps) | ||||||||||||
| 14 | How NCMP would forward response? (Response data : ref. message flow #6)
| 1. Do we need to send only one response containing all the requested cm handles ? | kieran mccarthy Confirmed in meeting | ||||||||||||
| 15 | Message format for the batch interface | We have had some internal discussions including with some O-RAN standards representatives and one of the outcomes is that it would be good if we aligned with the some community standards for event header definitions. IT is proposed (initially from AT&T) that we should follow Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF) specification as defined in their cloudevents incubator project. Some non-standard headers wil need to be implemented as 'extensions' and names to be confirmed
|
| ||||||||||||
| 16 | NCMP will send only one request to each DMI |
NCMP batch endpoint : http://localhost:8080/ncmp/v1/data?&topic=my-topic-name DMI-Plugin batch endpoint : http://172.26.202.25:8783/dmi/v1/data?topic=my-topic-name&requestId=e6fa4d26-4dc1-4877-aa3c-45e99f840708
| Agreed with Csaba Kocsis and kieran mccarthy | ||||||||||||
| 17 | Feature Name (events) | event type proposal : from DataOperationEvent For example : DataOperationResponseEvent 'eventType' value as below 'org.onap.cps.ncmp.events. proposed Operation like : 'org.onap.cps.ncmp.events.DataOperationEvent' 'batch' was the keyword use in the URL for this feature (now gone) but much code (classnames, variable names) etc uses this name still... | kieran mccarthy and Team agreed on and some cost (1-2 days) is acceptable | ||||||||||||
| 18 | What would be the field name of response data? | data.responses[0].data | kieran mccarthy please confirm : we are using 'responseContent' as name of this field as 'data' is already used for cloud event standard payload. Now it is like : Sourabh Sourabh Suggest to use "result". This is after all where the actual result output. the other tags in responses[x] are status related to the request : | ||||||||||||
| 19 | Exact format of timestamp of cloud events. | CloudEvent documentation (https://github.com/cloudevents/spec/blob/v1.0.2/cloudevents/spec.md#time) refers on | ISO8601 standard, which is not the same as ISO860: ISO8601 does MNOT include milliseconds...ISO8601 standard (see org.onap.cps.ncmp.api.impl.utils.EventDateTimeFormatter ) | Toine Siebelink Although not clearly communicated before ISO8601 is the standard to be used and it seems the current implementation in NCMP conforms to this standard |
Event Format Definitions
Event Headers
...