- Question about support for K8S Operators for Lifecycle Management. Answer: ONAP SO is focused on the service level orchestration. Lifecycle management of an NF can be delegated to K8S.
- Fernando Oliveira It has been my experience that K89S CRD and operators can support "some" of the container LCM, but I think that ONAP needs to be aware of the policies that it is delegating so that higher order policies do not conflict.
- SO can use more developer helping hands to improve the functionality of CNF orchestration.
- Question: How can a software vendor decide which "path" to use for CNF orchestration - The ETSI path and the existing SO path? A: There will be a translation between the formats. There is an attempt to align the model between the two paths.
- Fernando Oliveira I think that it must be our goal that a VNF vendor does not need to know the details of the orchestration flow(s) that ONAP uses to LCM a NF. I expect that we would define the requirements of th NF package and NF descriptor so that a vendor can construct a single package that ONAP can use with potentially different internal paths.
- Question: What is the proposed CNF descriptor? Is it a node type in TOSCA? A: There will be a new node type, but it is not closely following the ETSI-NFV VNFD. The SDC will have a new resource type called "Helm", but it is not 1:1 mapping to the ETSI-NFV VNFD.
- Fernando Oliveira In the ETSI model both container based and VM based NFs are described by a VNF Descriptor. The distinction as made at the VDU level where a VirtualComputeDesc is used to for VMs and OsContainerDesc is used for Containers. This page: https://wiki.onap.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=84664990 describes the proposed model.
- Consider portability between ETSI & ONAP for CNF