[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tosca] Groups - Change in SwImage artifact type uploaded
Hello Chris, Thanks for the clarification. I assume this was overlooked when the SwImage artifact type was defined in the NFV profile, at least I have not got any other information, as you saw in a separate
e-mail. The question is what to do now to comply with IFA011. Do you have any proposal? Should we create a new node as a wrapper of the SwImage artifact and we define the properties in the node? Or define the properties in the nodes that use the SwImage artifact, i.e. the Vdu.Compute and the Vdu.VirtualStorage? Best regards, Arturo
From: tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Chris Lauwers Hi Arturo,
The problem is not with defining new node types with type-specific properties. The problem is with associating properties with Artifacts. The artifact definition
grammar in TOSCA does not allow properties (see Section 3.5.6.1 in Version 1.1 of the spec). The reason for this is that there is no mechanism in TOSCA currently to use such properties even if they were allowed. There are three ways in which property values
can affect how services get orchestrated:
In summary, even if we allowed properties in artifacts, there is nothing an orchestrator could do with those artifacts. That said, I just noticed that there is a glaring inconsistency in the spec, since Artifact Type definitions do allow properties. Since artifact definitions themselves
are not able to assign values to properties defined in an Artifact Type, this needs to get fixed. My recommendation is remove property definitions from Artifact Type definition, for all the reasons I outlined above. Chris From: Arturo Martin De Nicolas [mailto:arturo.martin-de-nicolas@ericsson.com]
Hi Chris, I am not sure what is your proposal then for the NFV profile (or ETSI NFV SOL001) to mirror the VNFD and NSD information models. We are defining new node types
with new properties. Don’t we have the same issue with all of them? I assume a TOSCA orchestrator that supports this profile should understand these new types, or?
It is also possible that the service template contains interface operations scripts that know what to do with these properties. How do you see it? Best regards, Arturo From: Chris Lauwers [mailto:lauwers@ubicity.com]
Hi Arturo, We should discuss this more broadly. I believe it would be unwise for OASIS TOSCA to publish a Profile (e.g. the NFV Profile) that includes types that cannot be deployed by
a “generic” TOSCA orchestrator. As a TC, I believe we should not vote to ratify such a spec. Thanks, Chris From: Arturo Martin De Nicolas [mailto:arturo.martin-de-nicolas@ericsson.com]
Hello Chris, Please, note that I am not proposing to add any property, but to remove one. The listed properties are already there in the NFV profile. That is anyway a general issue in the NFV profile. There will be properties mapped from IFA011 with semantics that existing TOSCA orchestrators do not understand. Best regards, Arturo From: Chris Lauwers [mailto:lauwers@ubicity.com]
Hi Arturo, If we added these properties to the artifact, how do you envision an orchestrator would use those? There currently isn’t any TOSCA orchestrator functionality
that could make decisions based on those properties. Thanks, Chris From:
tosca@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:tosca@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Arturo Martin de Nicolas
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]