Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Cédric Ollivier How can it help the short term issues? an implementation is needed for the conformance on the VNF side and we need additional relevant resources in both sides: specifications (CNTT) and OPNFV (OPNFV)
  • Cédric Ollivier How would be leverage on it in a long term view? We shouldn't reinvent the wheel every release - the current model works and the separation between CNTT and OPNFV is clear for a few main CNTT contributors
  • What happens when CNTT develops a requirement in, say, RI-1?
    • does CNTT goes directly to prospective OPNFV project and get it implemented (via that project PTL).
      • how will the implementation link back to CNTT releases? 
      • Cédric Ollivier : CNTT RC lists the deliverables (containers/tags/testcases) from OPNFV. What's the additional point here? Could we detail the gap targeted?
      • Will each project have their own release cycle (with appropriate baggings) or will OPNFV have an overall release cadence ? how does the model work?
      • Cédric Ollivier I think the model works already.
        • CNTT is in charge of test case description/selection and playbooks (see RC) and then CNTT selects the test cases from OPNFV according to them.
        • OVP should implement the test result verification from the archive produced by CNTT playbook - Compared to first OVM OVP model the test case selection is now in RC
    • or will CNTT has to follow some kind of process to get their requirements implemented?
      • Cédric Ollivier : we may consider the classical opensource model here and then the answer could be straightforward: by putting developpers
      • Cédric Ollivier : opensource cannot follow a subcontractor model by design
    • or will OPNFV itself regularly get CNTT releases and find the right OPNFV projects to implement any new requirements.
      • via CIRV? Cédric Ollivier: CIRV is mostly an umbrella for incubation projects. It should be done at the project level possibly between CNTT RI/RC leaders and the PTLs/core developpers
    • what is the role of OPNFV TSC on all this? who is accountable for what?
    • we need to talk about accountability and make it clear who is accountable for what!
  • How does OVP fit into this matrix?
  • Given the GSMA process is it mostly a consumer and ratifier of the output from CNTT, or does it have a role in providing feedback?  I.e. how can this be set up to be a two way street? 

...

Expand
titleClick here to expand for more explanation...

Proposal Summary

Introduction

CNTT was formed in order to create a single spec for Openstack (1-stream) and a single spec for Kubernetes (2-stream).  The audience is the end-user companies that will become conformant to these specs.  CNTT needs to ensure that the end-user base can easily navigate and consume the documentation.


Problem statement

In the current CNTT documentation format, CNTT’s end user base will be challenged to figure out what they need to follow in order to be conformant to CNTT requirements and specs – should they follow what’s in RM or RA-1 or both ?  Maybe go look in some chapters of RI-1 or RC-1.  It’s a bit all over the place right now, hard to navigate.


Solution statement

Let’s make it easier for the end user to navigate !

Let’s make it easier for the end user to understand what they need to do !


  • RA-1:  Consolidate requirements into the RA-1 as a single document; any other documentation can reference this content as a single source.  Some existing RI-1 and RC-1 content should be moved into RA-1; remaining RI-1 and RC-1 content may remain or be removed altogether.
  • RI-1 only describes an example implementation of RA-1. 
  • RC-1 only describes a test suite that is capable of verifying and validating the requirements in RA-1.


Document

Owner

What

RA-1

CNTT

  • Ch 02 is “Requirements Traceability Matrix” (proposal already in progress)
  • (new) Ch 09 – Implementation Requirements
  • (new) Ch 10 – Conformance Requirements

RI-1

OPNFV

  • ("Cookbooks") Describes lab environment, installer, tools, and any other process
  • No CNTT requirements

RC-1

OPNFV

  • ("Cookbooks") Describes test tools, test cases created, running the tests, analyzing results.
  • Describe how the created test cases match to CNTT RA-1 Ch 10/02
  • No CNTT requirements

Deeper Detail of the Proposal

RA-1

What will the enhanced RA-1 look like ?

  • Chapter 02
    • Section 2.2 (stays “Reference Model requirements”)
      • Need to include relevant RM requirements here going forward.  This will be a copy/paste, but there are < 10 and easy to manage since RM really doesn’t change that much.  This is one big step in consolidating requirements.
      • Strict approval process for those requirements can enforce aligning with RM requirements.
    • Section 2.3 (rename as “Architecture and ecosystem Requirements”)
      • Requirements will be only “must” (non-“must” will be moved to 2.4)
      • Add a column “RI-1 Applicability” to existing tables, indicating “yes” or “no” if applicable to the Implementation
      • Add a column “RC-1 Applicability” to existing tables,  indicating “yes” or “no” if applicable to the Conformance
      • Add a column “RC-1 Category” to existing tables,  indicating type of test in the Conformance
      • Note:  The existing tables in this section serve as a “requirements Table of Contents”, with a column “Traceability” that links to more detailed information about that specific requirement.  Maybe this column should be renamed to “Detailed information” or equivalent in order to avoid confusion.
      • Consider adding reference to OpenSource “project/test script” that covers this requirement for completeness (requirements fulfillment with project/test name, etc)
    • Section 2.4 (rename as “Architecture and ecosystem Recommendations”)
      • Requirements will be only “may” or “should” (this section will remain “Recommendations” as the title states)
      • Note:  The existing tables in this section serve as a “requirements Table of Contents”, with a column “Traceability” that links to more detailed information about that specific requirement.  Maybe this column should be renamed to “Detailed information” or equivalent in order to avoid confusion.
    • Link to RA-1 Ch 02
    • Link to current RTM draft proposal
  • Chapter 09 will be a new chapter for “Implementation Requirements”
    • Introduction
      • Describe implementation intent, reference to RI-1 and its purpose
    • Requirements
      • Explain and refer to Traceability Matrix in Ch 02
      • Implementation specifications
        • Include OSTK setup / parameter / configuration details (references to RA-1 chapters as needed)
        • Include min hardware specs needed, software versions
    • Implementation Examples
      • hardware configurations, SDN, no SDN
    • Installer Selection
      • state that this is an end-user choice, provide link to RI-1 for an example
  • Chapter 10 will be a new chapter for “Conformance Specs”
    • Introduction
      • Describe conformance intent, reference to RC-1 and its purpose
    • Requirements
      • explain and refer to Traceability Matrix in Ch 02
    • Verification
      • Make sure the manifests match the RA-1 configurations/specs
    • NFVi Validation
      • OSTK Services.  Make sure the OSTK services are correctly configured
      • OSTK API.  Make sure the OSTK APIs are matching the correct version / microVersion per RA-1 Ch 02/05
      • NVFI Validation using Golden VNF.  Make sure the infrastructure conforms to RA-1 Ch 02 requirements.
    • Badging
      • Description (not yet clear which group actually documents the requirements, so keep this as a placeholder section)
      • Include links to NFVi and VNF badging details in OVP


RI-1

What will the RI-1 look like based on proposed changes ?

  • This document does not contain any CNTT requirements.
  • Describes the OPNFV lab environment with relevant links. (“cookbook”)
  • Describes the OPNFV Installer, usage and relevant links.  (“cookbook”)
  • Describes any other tools used, provide links.
  • Suggestion:  Lab interaction (login, operational tasks, etc) should be explained elsewhere, provide a link.


RC-1

What will the RC-1 look like based on proposed changes ?

  • This document does not contain any CNTT requirements.
  • Describes tools, processes and tests to verify and validate the reference implementation. (“cookbook”)
  • Describes How to run the tests, analyze results. (“cookbook”)
  • Provide links to tools and documentation.
  • Describes badging process (?)

...