#opnfv-models: Models Meeting #7

Meeting started by bryan_att at 16:02:11 UTC (full logs).

Meeting summary

    1. Agenda is OK (bryan_att, 16:04:02)
    2. Plans for Colorado is to (1) generate test framework for the models validation (bryan_att, 16:07:58)
    3. High-level focus will be on assessing the state of IM at ETSI and relation to the DSLs of TOSCA, YANG, etc (bryan_att, 16:08:58)
    4. ETSI specs and models are UML-based (IFA015), IFA011 goes into details such as element hierarchy in a text/table presentation, still at stage 2. (bryan_att, 16:10:45)
    5. The work of assessing/normalizing/codifying in the SOL group, e.g. SOL001 (TOSCA-based NFV NSD), is to develop stage 3 specs. (bryan_att, 16:13:22)
    6. Mark: The scope of this work item is to develop a data model specification for NFV descriptors fulfilling the requirements specified in GS NFV IFA 011 and NFV GS NFV IFA 014. The specification will be based on the Simple TOSCA profile specification for NFV with possible changes. The deliverable will contain normative provisions and an informative (bryan_att, 16:13:53)
    7. also doing the state 3 for IFA007 (bryan_att, 16:14:19)
    8. Marc made a presentation to the ETSI Plenary on the IM status (bryan_att, 16:19:50)
    9. https://docbox.etsi.org/ISG/NFV/05-CONTRIBUTIONS/2016//NFV(16)000168r1_NFV_Information_Model_Status____Relationship_with_other_SDOs.pptx (bryan_att, 16:19:56)
    10. https://www.irccloud.com/pastebin/wueJMGEF/ (bryan_att, 16:21:14)
    11. Bryan described the work at the OMA on service enabler virtualization as a use case for modeling (bryan_att, 16:36:58)
    12. http://member.openmobilealliance.org/ftp/Public_documents/TP/2016/OMA-TP-2016-0061-INP_Seville_WI_Wrapup.zip (bryan_att, 16:37:05)
    13. This is an example of a use case, we will use for the Models testing (if we can find an open source implementation) (bryan_att, 16:39:51)
    14. The question was whether we need to look at these use cases from a DSL view or a higher level view (bryan_att, 16:40:47)
    15. Marc's suggestion is to start at the DSL level for use cases as the UML/IM level is intended to be more conceptual and language independent, even use-case independent (the classes do not represent use case considerations rather generic usable concepts that can be implemented thru the DSL) (bryan_att, 16:43:10)
    16. IM's help to assess the consistency of the little pieces of the problem space, e.g. classes, e.g. services, service chain, etc... (bryan_att, 16:46:17)
    17. The IM should also enable the relationship description at the UML level and below. (bryan_att, 16:47:37)
    18. (related to earlier question about where to start in applying use case modeling) It may be useful to start at the UML level for service use cases that may be applied to different service environments, e.g. a web service that can be deployed for browsing, APIs, end-users, and IoT applications. (bryan_att, 16:54:06)
    19. such a web service might include a proxy, cache, and other network functions that can be modeled in terms of their function, relationships, and topology (bryan_att, 17:00:49)

Meeting ended at 00:15:51 UTC (full logs).

Action items

  1. (none)

People present (lines said)

  1. bryan_att (27)
  2. collabot` (3)

Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4.