1. NFV adhoc
Shitao li

2. Main progress Latest draft: tosca-nfv-v1.0-wd05-rev00 based on csd04
open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=60798&wg_ab brev=tosca
Main Topic discussed：
1， LS response to ETSI NFV
2，node types Gaps between tosca-nfv-profile and tosca-simple- profile-yaml
3, Deployment flavour discussion with simple yaml group

3. LS response to ETSI NFV
New TOSCA-323 issue has been created to track the progress of the LS responces to ETSI NFV
NFV(17)000178_LS_to_TOSCA_OASIS_with_Comments_on_CSD04.pdf
2019/5/20

4. node types Gaps between tosca-nfv-profile and tosca-simple-profile-yaml
Proposed changes to tosca-nfv-v1 0-csd04
Discussing about the gaps between the node tpyes that currently defined in tosca-nfv-profile-csd04 and the types already existed in tosca-simple-profile-yaml
Several questions for clarification:
1. Does NFV Profile have to support ALL TOSCA normative types (section 5 of SimpleYAML)?
2. If NOT all the TOSCA normative types have to be supported, how are they explicitly have to be documented, in addition to the new introduced types?
2.a. Should those TOSCA SimpleYAML normative types that are included in the NFV profile be explicitly mentioned, and all the rest explicitly excluded (deprecated).
2.b. Should all TOSCA SimpleYAML normative types be included by default, and only those that are excluded should be explicitly deprecated.
2.c. Other alternatives?
2019/5/20

5. Deployment flavour discussion with simple yaml group
Tosca-nfv-profile-csd04 only has a reference of TOSCA Simple Profile in YAML Version 1.0, is that possible to provide a solution for the deployment flavour design based on YAML version 1.0 (or version 1.1, since 1.1 has been approved as Committee Specification of OASIS )?
Does the enhanced grammar in TOSCA Simple Profile in YAML Version 1.2 mature enough to be used for the deployment flavour design?
VNFD_DF_service_template_examples r1.docx
Further discussion with simple yaml group is needed, some of the matching rule used in this example depends on the work in tosca_matching.pptx
1. should we make the matching algorithm clearer - i.e. make it clear in the 1.2 text how to match based on properties?
text should make it clear that matching needs to be against ALL properties - yes or not?
2. should we consider matching based on attributes as well?
3. what if multiple service template (indicating sub-systems) match - do we consider a match against all - and select the particular one at run-time based on input parameters (this is the case of multiple deployment flavors)?
2019/5/20

6. Thank you!
2019/5/20