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

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 34 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
  • You may recall we earlier discussed that we would not follow and adhere to just one industry standard, but make use of whatever standard from whatever standard body that solved the issue at hand.   Option 1 is in opposition to that approach.


Arun Gupta
  • What Kevin wrote.

  • Feedback to ETSI about changes should be after we have a working implementation that uses the data model.

    Added by ?

  • Seems like the most expedient way forward..
  • It would be good to adopt a set of conventions from one of the SDOs that have them, and apply it consistently across ONAP.

    Arun Gupta, in response to the above - there is no issue in using ETSI as the basis, but we need to make the naming consistent where ETSI is not, may need to add missing elements; remove ETSI elements that are not applicable; collapse some classes that are always 1:1; turn some ETSI classes that have no natural identifier into datatypes, etc.etc.  


Andy MayerWe 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....



 spolstonBest of breed approach where we advocate for our standards in ETSI and other bodies, but minimize constraints from their inconsistencies, and administrative processes.


Pamela Dragosh




Brian HedstromSee my question below...

Lingli Deng 



 Prefer to keep aligned with spec published names as the origin to avoid confusion for tracking and comparison.

Tao Shen



 Prefer to keep aligned with spec published names as the origin to avoid confusion for tracking and comparison.

wenyao guan



 Prefer to keep aligned with spec published names as the origin to avoid confusion for tracking and comparison.
Weitao Gao

Aligned with published spec names more friendly for developer.

Yan Yang



Keep consistent with IFA can help understand and avoid confusion

Yuan Liu



Prefer to simplify the concepts to align with ETSI.
maopeng zhang

Perfer to use the ETSI naming convention to make concepts in the same page easily and avoid to create "new wheels" in the industry. For long term, we should have a mechanism to let ONAP and ETSI cooperate with each other.

Zhaoxing Meng



Prefer aligning with ETSI to simplify and ease understanding of the IM

using ETSI as the basis

add missing elements, give feedback to ETSI

Chengli Wang



Prefer to align with IFA names to ease the implementation

Priya TG



Prefer aligning with ETSI to simplify and ease understanding of the IM

jianguo zeng



 I agreed that ONAP should not limit to just ETSI standard, But as the following concept is in scope of ETSI NFV: "VNFD/VNFDesc, VDU/VDUDesc, VirtualCpuData/VirtualCPUDesc, VirtualMemoryData/VIrtualMemoryDesc, Cpd/CPDesc" 

So, it seems most convenient to make the naming consistent with ETSI NFV in principle. But if found any thing need correct, it's possible to discuss and take action such as using own name or provide feedback to ETSI.

Chuanyu Chen

Prefer to keep consistent with IFA for ease understanding and implemetation.
 Andrei Kojukhov   Prefer aligning with ETSI






  • No labels