License Model Review Comments

Source	Class	Technical, Editorial, Clarification	Status	Comment	Proposed Resolution
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	n/a	editorial	Defer	Introduce in ONAP wiki an update list of approved classes with reference links to detailed description (a page per Release of some part of clean IM is not a long term viable way).	No direct impact on License Model. This should be addressed to the modeling subcommittee as a whole.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	all	editorial		Introduce in any model proposal, the inheritance tree diagram for any new class (e.g. what is the Licensing agreement inheritance tree ?)
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	n/a	clarification		#1 Is the current model proposal “as built model” going to cover the licensing model only for VNF considering it refers only to VNFD ?
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	n/a	clarification		#3 License keys, license agreements, and contractual details such as entitlement information, are all sensitive commercial information. ONAP has one single inventory database (AAI) accessible to all components in the system. It’s not clear that this sensitive information is well-protected in this kind of shared database deployment.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	EntitlementInstance LicenseKeyInstance	clarification		#8 Entitlement instance / LicenseKeyInstance classes refer to “As Built in ASDC”. Are (entitlement/LK) instance classes defined in ASDC considering it is derived from the “operationalEntity” class ? How entitlement instances are introduced in SDC ? SDC UI documentation refers to the EntitlementPool and LKPool but NOT to the EntitlementInstance and LK instance. How Entitlement instances and License key instances should be used in SDC ? In https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/SDC+Deployment+Artifacts, it is defined the vendor license artifact as xml file including entitlement pool and license key group (attributes here are simplified respect to the VLM proposed). In this file only entitlement pool and license pool seems to be defined and it seems that instances are not available.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	All	technical		#2 Mainly all the class definition in this proposal refer to the concept of software/software product more than network functions but software/sw product is not defined in ONAP model. What is the meaning of software in this context ? What is the relation between software and resource or VNF?
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	EntitlementPool	technical		#13 Entitlement Pool definition is partially duplicated, to be reviewed. In addition, it states “Controllers will request entitlements.” This is not a “as built in” behavior, it should be removed.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	LicenseKeyPool	technical		#16 The description of LicenceKeyPool refers to “Asset Inventory”, which is not part of ONAP and not described anywhere in the proposal
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	All	editorial		"General" #2 Mainly all class relationships are defined only in the diagram by the relationship name and their cardinality. Today a class definition does not include any relationship definition. We recommend to introduce the relationship definition in the class model.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	EntitlementPool LicenseKeyPool	technical		#6 We do not have evidence of the full list of attributes defined in the ONAP as built in model in particular for EntitlementPool and LicenseKeyPool classes. Considering the attributes defined in SDC UI (https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Resource+Onboarding, only a subset of attributes should be defined in ONAP model. Can you provide some more clear reference about SDC model ? Otherwise, should we consider only the attributes defined in SDC UI for the as built in model. In addition, some attributes are repeated in EntitlementPool/LicenseKeyPool and PoolLimit as ThresholdValue and ThresholdUnit. SPPoolLimit and VendorPoolLimit in EntitlementPool/LicensekeyPool are not defined in SDC UI so they do not seem to be used.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	LicenseAgreement	technical		#11 LicenseAgreement class contains free-form text information in the attributes requirementsAndConstraints and statementOfIntent that is not usable in any automation UC and thus should instead be contained in an external document
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	DesignEntity	technical		#12 The “validFor” attribute in EntitlementPool and LicenseKeyPool (inherited from DesignEntity) is mandatory. It’s not obvious whether this validity value then applies to all instances in the pool. If so, it’s not possible to define licenses and entitlements that are valid for an unlimited amount of time, thus the attribute needs to be made optional.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	EntitlementPool	technical		#14 Entitlement Pool class: entitlementManufactureReferenceNumber has a multiplicity 0..1 and it is defined as “identifier for the entitlement as described…”. Isn´t more a entitlementPool identifier more than the entitlement (instance) identifier ? For consistency with the ONAP IM classes, we should review the name of this attribute in entitlementPoolVendorReferenceNumber.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	LicenseKeyInstance	technical		#15 LicenseKey attribute (in LicenseKeyInstance) is defined twice, once as a String (with upper-case “k”) and once using the type “File” (with lower-case “k”). It’s not obvious how/if either of these attributes can be used in the case of a subscription-based license. The LicenseKey of type file is defined of type “future” so it should be removed as not Asbuilt in
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	EntitlementInstance	clarification		#17 Entitlement instance class, SoftwareAssetTag: swAssetTag not defined in SDC UI. What is a softwareAssetTag ? What is the relation with the ONAP classes ?
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	EntitlementInstance LicenseKeyInstance	clarification		#18 EntitlementInstance and LicenseKeyInstance classes include the mandatory attribute ssmUserId. ssmUserID not defined in SDC UI. What is SSM? ssmUserId is defined as The requestor of the entitlement. What is the requestor ?
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	Vendor	technical		#4 “Vendor” class in the top level diagram is not defined in this proposal. It was originally included in the R5 “Party” proposal which was never approved. Current modeling proposal depends on Vendor class due to the introduction of the relation with LicenseAgreement and the definition of an indirect relation through the vendor of the VNFD with the LicensingAgreement. We recommend we agree on the Vendor class scope before we approve a Licensing model. In addition, Vendor class introduces two new attributes: status and validFor attributes and we do not agree should be part of the Vendor class but differently modelled in the context of the LVM.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	SequenceFlows	technical		#5 There are two EMPTY classes under SequenceFlows , “License::SequenceFlows::License Setup” and “SimpleOrderFlow class” – these have NO descriptions, NOT included in any diagrams, and are NOT thus possible to understand in the context of the proposal. We recommend to remove these two classes from the proposal.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	EntitlementPool LicenceKeyPool FeatureGroup	technical		#7 Three related inconsistencies: The description of EntitlementPool states that “An EntitlementPool is not specific to a Feature Group. An Entitlement Pool may be related to multiple Feature Groups of a software product or even to multiple software products.” However the cardinality of the FeatureGroupHasEntitlementPool has 1 on the FeatureGroup end, meaning that EntitlementPool can only be associated with a single FeatureGroup. The description of LicenceKeyPool states that “A license key group is not specific to a feature group. A license key group may be related to multiple feature groups of a software item or even to multiple software items.” However the cardinality of the FeatureGroupHasLicenseKeyPool has 1 on the FeatureGroup end, meaning that LicenceKeyPool can only be associated with a single FeatureGroup. The description of FeatureGroup states that “If an Entitlement Pool or License Key Group is associated with a particular Feature Group, the Feature Group becomes a "constraint" for the pool/group.” That implies that it should be possible to create an EntitlementPool or LicenceKeyPool without an association to a FeatureGroup. But in the proposal, FeatureGroupHasEntitlementPool and FeatureGroupHasLicenseKeyPool indicate that both EntitlementPool and LicenceKeyPool must each be associated with one FeatureGroup.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	LicenseAgreement	technical		#9 VNFD – License Agreement relationship: There is no direct relation between the LicenseAgreement class and the VNFD class but objects are connected through the Vendor class losing the possibility to detect the VNFD/VNF type from a LicensingAgreement. Is this the real SDC “built in” model ? Is it a general enough model we want in ONAP ?
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	VNFinstance	technical		#10 A VNFinstance can only have a Entitlement instance and a LKinstance. Is it a general enough model we want in ONAP ?
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	LicenseAgreement FeatureGroup	clarification		#19 It’s not clear why the LicenseAgreementHasFeatureGroup association has cardinality 1..* on each end. Further explanation needed.
Michela Bevilacqua Jacqueline Beaulac	FeatureGroup EntitlementPool	clarification		#20 It’s not clear why the FeatureGroupHasEntitlementPool association has cardinality 1..* on the EntitlementPool end. Further explanation needed.

Space shortcuts

Page tree