Table of Contents
Use Case Overview & Description
CLAMP (Control Loop Automation Management Platform) functionalities, recently moved to Policy project , want to provide a Control Loop Lifecycle management architecture. A control Loop is a key concept for Automation and assurance Use Cases and remain a top priority for ONAP as an automation platform. This requirement wants to improve Control Loop LCM architecture focusing on an abstract CL management logic, isolating CL logic vs ONAP component logic, providing a common CL Design time catalogue with a generic CL definition, and elaborate API to integrate with other design systems as well as 3PP component integration. PoCs have been progressed in ONAP Rel G and H in this area, CL LCM redesign has reached a relevant viable set of features and it is ready to be moved in Rel I to mainstream as part of the Policy framework.
Use Case Key Information
| TOPIC | DESCRIPTION | WIKI PAGE |
| Requirements Proposal | This is a link to the requirements proposal made on the Requirements Sub-committee | Istanbul release - functional requirements proposed list#ControlLoopinTOSCALCM |
| Architecture S/C info | Information on the Architecture sub-committee presentation | |
| Prior Project "Base" Wiki | Link to the "base" wiki for the Use Case, or work from a prior release. | |
| Requirements Jira (REQ-###) Ticket | Link to the REQ Jira ticket for this use case | |
| Key Use Case Leads & Contacts | USE CASE LEAD: Zu Qiang (Ericsson) Liam Fallon Michela Bevilacqua USE KEY CONTACTS: | |
| Meetings Register & Recordings | Link to Use Case Team meetings. |
BUSINESS DRIVER
Executive Summary - CLAMP (Control Loop Automation Management Platform) functionalities, recently moved to Policy project , want to provide a Control Loop Lifecycle management architecture. A control Loop is a key concept for Automation and assurance Use Cases and remain a top priority for ONAP as an automation platform. This requirement wants to improve Control Loop LCM architecture focusing on an abstract CL management logic, isolating CL logic vs ONAP component logic, providing a common CL Design time catalogue with a generic CL definition, and elaborate API to integrate with other design systems as well as 3PP component integration. PoCs have been progressed in ONAP Rel G and H in this area, CL LCM redesign has reached a relevant viable set of features and it is ready to be moved in Rel I to mainstream as part of the Policy framework.
Business Impact - Deployment and orchestration of automation and control loop use cases across CNFs, VNFs and PNFs in a model driven way simplifies the network management. Enables operators and service providers to manage the Life Cycle of a Network Service. Assuring continuity of operation of services is crucial for production and carrier grade environments. The actualization or upgrades of software and in consequence required changes in the service model is a natural part of service instance life cycle. Without the support of ONAP service update with schema change, service life cycle management by ONAP can be very difficult which can impact the quality and continuity of services.
Business Markets - All operators and service providers that are using ONAP for automation and assurance.
Funding/Financial Impacts - CL LCM wants to reduce operational expense and its abstraction will provide an added value with multiple integration points.
Organization Mgmt, Sales Strategies - (It is suggested that you use the following wording): There is no additional organizational management or sales strategies for this use case outside of a service providers "normal" ONAP deployment and its attendant organizational resources from a service provider. (This would typically describe the "WHO", but because use cases are all deployed with ONAP itself, these two areas come with the actual ONAP deployment and uses the organizational management and sales strategies of a particular service provider's ONAP deployment)
Development Status
| PROJECT | PTL | User Story / Epic | Requirement |
| A&AI | |||
| AAF | |||
| APPC | |||
| CLAMP | |||
| CC-SDK | |||
| CPS | Toine Siebelink | ||
| DCAE | |||
| DMaaP | Mandar Sawant (Old) → Fiachra Corcoran (New) | ||
| External API | |||
| HOLMES | |||
| MODELING | |||
Multi-VIM / Cloud | |||
| OOF | |||
| OOM | |||
| POLICY | |||
| PORTAL | |||
| SDN-C | |||
| SDC | |||
| SO | |||
| VID | |||
| VF-C | |||
| VNFRQTS | |||
| VNF-SDK | Weitao Gao (Old) → user-67d6f (New) | ||
| CDS |
List of PTLs:Approved Projects
*Each Requirement should be tracked by its own User Story in JIRA
USE CASE DIAGRAM
Use cases define how different users interact with a system under design. Each use case represents an action that may be performed by a user (defined in UML as an Actor with a user persona).
Use Case Functional Definitions
Use Case Title | Title of the Use Case |
Actors (and System Components) | The list of Actors and System Components that participate in the Use Case |
Description | Short overview of the Use Case |
Points of Contact | Authors and maintainers of the Use Case. Use Case Lead, Key Use Case members and code contributors. |
Preconditions | A list of conditions that are assumed to be true before the Use Case is invoked Includes description of Information Consumed |
Triggers / Begins when | Describes the trigger for beginning the Use Case |
Steps / Flows (success) | Describes the sequence of steps and interactions that occur during the Use Case (may include: description, data exchanges, functionality, state changes) Interaction diagrams may be included or referenced |
Post-conditions | The expected results of the execution of the Use Case Includes description of Information Produced |
Alternate / Exception Paths | Description of any exceptions or special process that could occur during Use Case |
Related Use Cases | List of the Use Cases referenced by this Use Case |
Assumptions | Describes any assumptions that are made for this use case |
Tools / References / Artifacts | List of any tools or reference material associated with this Use Case as well as any JIRA trace-ability. List of any associated diagrams or modelling artifacts associated with the Use Case |
Epic Status
Key
Summary
Assignee
arch review
tsc priority
scope status
t-shirt size
m1 approval
m2 approval
m3 approval
m4 approval
rc0 approval
Status
REQ Status
Key
Summary
Assignee
Reporter
integration test plan status
integration test status
integration test time to complete
Status
Development Status
TESTING
Current Status
Testing Blockers
- High visibility bugs
- Other issues for testing that should be seen at a summary level
- Where possible, always include JIRA links
End to End flow to be Tested
**This should be a summary level Sequence diagram done in Gliffy**
JIRA Relelationships and Sequencing
Test Cases and Status
| 1 | There should be a test case for each item in the sequence diagram | NOT YET TESTED |
| 2 | create additional requirements as needed for each discreet step | COMPLETE |
| 3 | Test cases should cover entire Use Case | PARTIALLY COMPLETE |