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, ...
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 1 | Option 2 | Option 3 | Poll Comments |
---|---|---|---|
Prefer to align with IFA names to ease the implementation | |||
Kevin Scaggs |
| ||
Arun Gupta |
| ||
Andy Mayer | We 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.... | ||
spolston | Best of breed approach where we advocate for our standards in ETSI and other bodies, but minimize constraints from their inconsistencies, and administrative processes. | ||
Priya TG Prefer aligning with ETSI to simplify and ease understanding of the IM