Open discussion and brainstorming on how to better align the requirements pipeline for both functional and non-functional requirements

Attendees: Alla Goldner, @Andrea Visnyei, Atsushi Makita , @Bartosz Gorski ,  Benjamin CheungBill Mulligan ,  Catherine Lefevre , Ciaran Johnston, @John Keeney ,  Kamel IdirKen KANISHIMALiam FallonMorgan RichommeMukesh PaliwalPamela DragoshPawel Pawlakyellela nagaphanindraRanny HaibySeshu Kumar MudigantiScott BlandfordSithara NambiarSonia SangariThomas KulikTimo Perala,  @Toine Siebelink, Vijay Venkatesh Kumar , Vimal Begwani , Xin Miao



  • multiple sources of requirements 
  • Alla Goldner  routing things via Requirements subcommittee could result with duplicate work
  • Pamela Dragosh  most control-loop requirements were defined in the prior release
  • Scott Blandford  requirements + arch subc process could be adopted by other committees
  • Benjamin Cheung working on arch process weekly -,  Way of Working
  • Alla Goldner do we limit the number of input sources?
  • Scott Blandford is requirements sub a funnel or are there processes that ate always applied?
  • Vimal Begwani  aggregation  point only?
  • requirements sub currently does not set prioritization. 
  • Pamela Dragosh the control-loop sub was set up to align projects, but seeing control-loop work that is occurring without participation in the subcommittee
  • Kenny Paul subcommittees can make recommendations on priorities to TSC
  • Catherine Lefevre the requirements subcommittee become the ONAP product owner?
  • Pawel Pawlak new seccom requirements could go through requirements for alignment, best-practices once adopted should not be re-submitted for each release
  • Seshu Kumar Mudiganti technical debt can become a requirement for the next release  - may impact multiple projects. as long as internal change w/out API impact not need to route to req sub
  • Consensus:
    • any requirements- regardless of source- should go through the requirements subcommittee.
    • and euag submits requirements to req. sub where they are vetted
    • committee consolidates backlog
    • committee should make prioritization recommendations to the TSC
  • Enhance the mission of the Requirements Subcommittee:
    • Act as the ONAP Product Owners 
    • Recommend Prioritization to the TSC
    • Create the consolidated ONAP Backlog coming from the different streamlines (outside/internal + EAUG)
    • As an example, EUAG/SECCOM/Control Loops → REq Subcommittee prioritirised → (Architecture Review if required) → TSC 


  • Alla Goldner lead a "recharter" of Requirements sub to align with the new proposed mission.