You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

NOTE: This poll closes on February 28th, 2018


There're two naming conventions for the current information model: 1) ETSI IFA011 names; 2) new proposal to align the class names within ONAP IM.

Examples: (IFA011 name / proposal for change)

VNFD/VNFDesc, VDU/VDUDesc, VirtualCpuData/VirtualCPUDesc, VirtualMemoryData/VIrtualMemoryDesc, Cpd/CPDesc, ...

Poll Question

Which one of the following options you would like to follow to resolve the naming convention divergence?

Option 1: be consistent with ETSI IFA011 naming convention; give feedback to ETSI about the new proposals and make change to ONAP according to the result

Option 2: make changes in ONAP IM and keep a mapping (e.g., in the description of the class/attribute) of ETSI names with ONAP ones

Option 3: Option 2 + feedback to ETSI about the changes

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












  • No labels