Hi Madhu, I agree with the increase of complexity. Looking at the other use cases, they are much more simply/short. In order not to confuse others and to get the important use cases agreed soon, I propose to limit the changes and consider to add some details -if needed- at a later stage.
Detailed comments: - Existing text introduces cloud service providers (CSP). The new proposed text adds the same abbreviation for Communication Service Providers. This should be avoided. - Proposal to shorten/simplify the new paragraph on VNFs and VNFDs? - What you call generic reservation is already an agreed use case, so we should keep this level of granularity and also IMHO we should not touch/change other use cases as we haven't talked to the contributor of those use cases and may not know their intention behind. - The proposed part on "minimal set of parameters" could be misleading as we would like to have the option to specify those parameters, but we don't want to enforce those parameters to all use cases, i.e. the parameter shall be available but its usage is optional. What about changing this part to use cases that require those parameters? * Start time: is already there in the existing use cases: future start time in 1+2; immediate start time in 3 (to be more explicit on this we could add a "from now", but IMHO no strong need). * Expiry time: I had a proposal in my first draft of this (see email August 25th): * As a CSP, I want to be able to cancel a RUR if the user has not started using the requested capacity in a given time window after the planned start time of the RUR. Note, this is similar to a "no-show" rule for hotel and restaurant bookings. We could also hold back this item for the time being and add it in a later revision once the main part on the reservation of instances is approved. * Compute (vCPU, RAM), network and storage volume are already covered by other use cases. "Future items" can be added in a later revision. See also the attached revision of the document. Best regards, Gerald From: Kashyap, Madhu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2016 00:48 To: Kunzmann, Gerald <[email protected]>; Gangur, Hrushikesh <[email protected]>; Arturo Martin De Nicolas <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Souville, Bertrand <[email protected]>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]>; Ashiq Khan <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Perhaps this is getting a little complicated with different reservation requests (discrete or aggregate) and confidence levels (guaranteed or best effort). Here's another proposal - we have reservations either against specific VNFs or we have generic reservations. In the case of reservations for specific VNFs we know the exact requirements from a virtual machine perspective which is based on VNFD. The granularity of the reservation is a virtual machine. The other kind of reservation is a generic reservation, similar to "I want 60 vCPUs, 240 gig ram and 600 Gig disk". Here the granularity is more fine-grained. In both cases the reservations, specific or generic, would be guaranteed if the resources are available. In the generic reservation we don't know how the resources would be used. It is possible that the resources are spread across many hosts. Let's take an extreme case based on a request for 60 vCPUs. These could be spread across 60 hosts. So even though these were requested and reserved it is possible that when you go to deploy a VM it could fail. This is because we don't know how these resources are going to be used even though it has been reserved. Again in both requests (specific or generic) we guarantee the resources but for the generic request it is up to the operator on how they use the resources. Welcome any thoughts and comments. -Madhu From: Kunzmann, Gerald [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:24 AM To: Kashyap, Madhu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gangur, Hrushikesh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Arturo Martin De Nicolas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Souville, Bertrand <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ashiq Khan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Hi Madhu, all, Thanks for the updated version based on the PWG discussions. My comments: - I would not use the term "best-effort" for the reservation requests as we also would like to get a guarantee on the requested aggregated resources. o What about the terms "discrete" and "aggregate"? o Alternatively, introduce two levels of granularity "discrete" / "aggregate" and in addition introduce two levels of "confidence", i.e. "guaranteed" vs "planned (best-effort)", where you can indicate a) that you want to do a reservation to have a guaranteed access to the resources or b) you inform the CSP about the planned usage of resources such that the CSP can improve his capacity mgmt.. ? Should we distinguish between a resource reservation request (RRR) and a planned resource usage notification (RUN)? o - I am not sure about the term "prescribed"; would you use it when talking about the VNFD or did you mean s/prescribed/described/ ? Best regards, Gerald From: Kashyap, Madhu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Mittwoch, 28. September 2016 20:37 To: Kunzmann, Gerald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gangur, Hrushikesh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Arturo Martin De Nicolas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Souville, Bertrand <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ashiq Khan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Hi Gerald and all, Based on the call from a couple weeks ago, I have made some changes to reflect what we discussed. The main point is that there are two kinds of reservation requests: 1. Guaranteed - this is based on discrete, specific requests as described in the VNFD 2. Best-effort - these are requests based on aggregate resources such as "give me 60 vCPUs, 240 Gig RAM, 600 GIG disk etc." Please review the attached doc in detail and provide feedback. Let's try to close on this soon so we can provide the reviews back to PWG. Best regards -Madhu From: Kunzmann, Gerald [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2016 2:47 AM To: Gangur, Hrushikesh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kashyap, Madhu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Arturo Martin De Nicolas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Souville, Bertrand <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ashiq Khan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Dear all, I have had the chance to discuss this document with Arturo in today's Promise call and I have updated the document based on his comments - see attachment. Best regards, Gerald From: Kunzmann, Gerald Sent: Dienstag, 20. September 2016 17:51 To: 'Gangur, Hrushikesh' <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kashyap, Madhu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Arturo Martin De Nicolas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Souville, Bertrand <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Ashiq Khan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Dear all, Sorry for the delay, I had been on a 2 week vacation. Attached a new version addressing, amongst others, Arturo's comments. @Madhu: Can you try to finalize the document and input it to the next meeting of the PWG? Best regards, Gerald From: Gangur, Hrushikesh [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Dienstag, 13. September 2016 20:37 To: Kashyap, Madhu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Arturo Martin De Nicolas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kunzmann, Gerald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Souville, Bertrand <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Madhu - looks good and see my comments with emphasis on VNFD being a primary source of RUR elements. From: Kashyap, Madhu Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 11:01 AM To: Arturo Martin De Nicolas <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kunzmann, Gerald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Souville, Bertrand <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gangur, Hrushikesh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Hi, I have edited the document to reflect the scope of the RUR. Please review and comment. Also added a few comments. Arturo, I have not addressed your comments. Perhaps Gerald can shed some light on your comments. Best Regards -Madhu From: Arturo Martin De Nicolas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 1:14 AM To: Kunzmann, Gerald <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Kashyap, Madhu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Souville, Bertrand <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Gangur, Hrushikesh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: RE: [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Hi Madhu, Gerald, all. Please, see some comments from my side. Best regards, Arturo From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kunzmann, Gerald Sent: Friday, September 02, 2016 12:06 PM To: Kashyap, Madhu; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Souville, Bertrand; Thulasi, Arun; Gangur, Hrushikesh Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Hi Madhu, all, Find attached a commented version of the user story. I believe we need to do further changes to make it read more like a user story instead of specific detailed requirements. I am not sure defining requirements would be accepted by the PWG. Looking forward to your feedback. Best regards, Gerald From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kashyap, Madhu Sent: Donnerstag, 1. September 2016 20:19 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Gangur, Hrushikesh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Thulasi, Arun <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Promise]Capacity Management User Story Hi, As discussed during the call, attached is the capacity management user story with my edits. Please review and provide comments. Also think about the granularity of the scope the reservation request. Thanks -Madhu
Capacity_Management_User_Story-MK-GK-AMN-HJG-GK2-MK-GK3.docx
Description: Capacity_Management_User_Story-MK-GK-AMN-HJG-GK2-MK-GK3.docx
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
