This table summarizes the plan in regard to support of "Platform Maturity" for each project in Casablanca Release. The data below are extracted from each project plan.
The Platform Maturity recommendations are documented in "Platform Maturity Status" from Jason Hunt
Legend
Color code:
- Red: below maturity level
- Yellow: same maturity.
- Green: improved maturity level.
M1 Actual represents the assessment before M1. M1 Target represents, at M1 date, what the team plans to implement. M4 result represents what has been really implemented at M4 date . All these fields are self-assessed by the team.
| AREA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Design / Run-Time | Performance | Stability | Resiliency | Security | Scalability | Manageability | Usability | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min TSC Recommendations | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | M1 Actual | M1 Target | M4 result | |
| Project Name | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| A&AI | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 (stretch goal; 2 unlikely) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Application Authorization Framework | R | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| APPC | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (APPC) 2 (Integration) (Note 1) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 - Partial (Note 2) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| CLAMP | D | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (2 if CLAMP get more resource) | 1 | 1 (2 if CLAMP get more resource) | |||||||
| Common Controller SDK | R | |||||||||||||||||||||
| DCAE | D & R | 1 | 2 (stretch) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 (+topic security w/dependency Note3) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (+logging v1.2) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| DMaaP | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Documentation | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
| External API Framework | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Holmes | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 Stretch | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 Stretch | |||||||
| NA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| Logging Enhancements Project | R | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |||||||
| Microservices Bus | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Modeling | D | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||||||
| Multi VIM/Cloud | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| MUSIC | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| ONAP CLI | D & R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||
| ONAP Operations Manager | R | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ONAP Optimization Framework | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| ONAP Usecase UI Project Proposal | D | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1+ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1+ | 1 | 1+ | |||||||
| Policy Framework Project Proposal | D & R | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 (logging v1.2 only) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Portal Platform Project Proposal | D & R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||||||
| SDN-C | R | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Service Design & Creation | D | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1+(AAF integration and https support) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1(with logiing v1.2 spec support) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Service Orchestrator | R | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| VFC | R | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| VID | R | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1(with logiing v1.2 spec support) | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| VNF SDK | D | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| VNF Requirements | NA | |||||||||||||||||||||
| VNF Validation (VVP) | D | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | |||||||||||||
Note 1: Assumption is that platform 72 hour test is run by Integration team; Component team will run regression (Level 1) on Casablanca release
Note 2: APPC was Level 1 compliant in Beijing; however, Level 1 definition changes in Casablanca. APPC cannot commit to Level 1 due to pending item. See M1 Planning for more details.
Note 3: Dynamic topic provisioning and RBAC assignment has dependency on DMAAP-BC (DMAAP project) and AAF team