Versions Compared

Old Version 8

changes.mady.by.user Lincoln Lavoie

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Jim Baker

Saved on

Key

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

 

Attendees: Georg Kunz Brandon Wick Lincoln Lavoie  Jim Baker

OVP portal 

  • repo based development for interfaces to test results
  • portal is basically a dynamic representation of test.db results
  • Initial plan: One-time development effort by external company, followed by community based support


Open Questions:

  • Long term maintenance suggests a hosted project under LFN - ONAP or OPNFV
    • OPNFV/CNTT technically have the alignment to the OVP outcomes
    • ONAP has more development resources and may be a better project owner for the portal?
  • Community has been unable to support the current portal, why would the community be better equipped on some new portal?
  • How to get to a specific project plan?
    • Have existing portal and a list of improvements
    • UNH is a knowledgeable supplier - can we get confirmation of UNH willingness to build/support
  •  Lincoln Lavoieto develop SOW for presentation and review  




 

Attendees: Heather Kirksey Jim Baker Lincoln Lavoie Brandon Wick Georg Kunz

...

  • Development
    • Represent the workflow of the respective participants
      • xtesting results uploaded - schema for uploads
      • portal to validate/accept inputs - version checking
      • Allow authorized set of people to manage the badging administration
    • No regression of functionality from Dovetail implementation
    • Alignment of results formats from ONAP/OPNFV
      • ?Allow all versions to be uploaded - deprecate older versions?
        • Bring forward existing badging - unlikely to support old schema/results 
        • Minimum: current xtesting and ONAP results - schemas
    • Converged portal (VNF/NFVIs/CNF) 
    • Built on LF infra (shared vs. dedicated)
    • Desire portal to be managed without LF IT interactions 
    • Naming changes?
      • Define that early
    • User management
      • integrated with LF SSO 
      • Privileged users for management
    • 3rd party OVP lab integration 
    • Use existing portal as a basis for MVP definition
    • Timeline?
      • Objective: full MVP implementation - Oct 2020 (ONES Sept 28)
        • Public availability
        • Migrate existing data
        • Internal Go-Live –  
        • Development time – start  
        • Review submissions to RFP
        • RFP open time –  
        • RFP definition complete –  
        • Budget setting/approval – LF GB  
        • Vendor qualification - at least 3 vendors
      • Support for incoming data sets and badging processes
  • Hosting
  • Maintenance
  •  Georg Kunzto expound on requirements by  

...