| Source | Class | Status | Comment | Proposed Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a | 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. | |
| all | Introduce in any model proposal, the inheritance tree diagram for any new class (e.g. what is the Licensing agreement inheritance tree ?) | |||
| n/a | Review | #1 Is the current model proposal “as built model” going to cover the licensing model only for VNF considering it refers only to VNFD ? | The scope of the model is presently VNF and VNFD, but nothing prevents it from being expanded in the future. | |
| n/a | Review | #3 License keys, license agreements, and contractual details such as entitlement information, are all sensitive commercial information.
| Presently much of this information is collected in SDC, and then distributed to other appropriate systems. Remember – this is “as built” information model. Security of the systems and related network is the responsibility of the service provider. Also details of the actual licenses and entitlements are held in an asset management system outside the present scope of ONAP. | |
EntitlementInstance LicenseKeyInstance | #8 Entitlement instance / LicenseKeyInstance classes refer to “As Built in ASDC”.
| |||
| All | Review | #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.
| A fair observation. The Vnf is software, and is the product of some vendor that is then being incorporated into an operator’s resource. Definitions should be updated and generalized - this is the original documentation. One option is to generalize when a Pnf or some other non-software resource is added. In addition, we can update “softwareAssetTag” to something like “licenseAssetTag”. | |
| EntitlementPool | #13 Entitlement Pool definition is partially duplicated, to be reviewed.
| |||
| LicenseKeyPool | #16 The description of LicenceKeyPool refers to “Asset Inventory”, which is not part of ONAP and not described anywhere in the proposal | |||
| All | "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.
| |||
EntitlementPool LicenseKeyPool | Review | #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 provide screenshots of UIs as well as a view of the XML being distributed from SDC. XML from SDC can be found at - | |
| LicenseAgreement | #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 | |||
| DesignEntity | #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.
| |||
| EntitlementPool | #14 Entitlement Pool class: entitlementManufactureReferenceNumber has a multiplicity 0..1 and it is defined as “identifier for the entitlement as described…”.
| |||
| LicenseKeyInstance | #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”).
| |||
| EntitlementInstance | #17 Entitlement instance class, SoftwareAssetTag: swAssetTag not defined in SDC UI. What is a softwareAssetTag ? What is the relation with the ONAP classes ? | |||
EntitlementInstance LicenseKeyInstance | #18 EntitlementInstance and LicenseKeyInstance classes include the mandatory attribute ssmUserId.
| |||
| Vendor | Review | #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.
| At the time the root hierarchy was developed, we agreed to leave the approval of the Party related concepts until it was needed – the license model was specifically mentioned at that time as a likely reason. That time is now. The Party model is well established and documented model. Refinement suggestions to the party/partyrole/vendor classes are welcome, but keep in mind these concepts are well established and mature. Therefore approval for this model includes approval for the concept of vendor and it’s super classes. | |
| SequenceFlows | Review | #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.
| These Papyrus (not information model) classes are the basis of two simple sequence diagram flows. It appears that the diagrams did not get included into the lasted WIKI post (see version 3) . We will incorporate the diagrams on the wiki with the next update. | |
EntitlementPool LicenceKeyPool FeatureGroup | #7 Three related inconsistencies:
| |||
| LicenseAgreement | #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.
| |||
| VNFinstance | #10 A VNFinstance can only have a Entitlement instance and a LKinstance.
| |||
LicenseAgreement FeatureGroup | #19 It’s not clear why the LicenseAgreementHasFeatureGroup association has cardinality 1..* on each end.
| |||
FeatureGroup EntitlementPool | #20 It’s not clear why the FeatureGroupHasEntitlementPool association has cardinality 1..* on the EntitlementPool end.
| |||
Overview
Content Tools