ETSI's Bug Tracker - SOL001 - TOSCA-based NFV descriptors spec
View Issue Details
0008218SOL001 - TOSCA-based NFV descriptors spec[NFV Specifications] Bugpublic21-11-2023 11:3915-05-2024 14:41
Sujeet Banerjee 
 
normalminorhave not tried
newopen 
 
 
0008218: [R4.3.1][R4.4.1] Clause 6.7.1.2 "Definition" of tosca.interfaces.nfv.Vnflcm does not define "Implementation"
There are two conflicting clauses:

Clause 6.7.1.3: "Additional Requirements" which states:
---
"The 'implementation' and 'inputs' keynames specified in TOSCA-Simple-Profile-YAML-v1.3 [20] for an operation definition may be included for each operation listed in the Vnflcm interface definition."
---


BUT, the referred clause 6.7.1.2 "Definition", which provides the VnfLCM Interface definition, there is no attribute or property "implementation" defined. There is no TOSCA type defined for a bunch of keys with the VNF LCM Interface definition:
  "implementation": Type??
  "operations": Type??
  "notifications": Type??
  each operation: What is the base Type??
 
Further, it's not clear whether the key "implementation" is the parent of "inputs" or is a peer, as given in an example in clause 6.7.1.5 "Examples":

----
node_templates:
SunshineDB:
type: MyCompany.SunshineDB.1_0.1_0
..
interfaces:
  Vnflcm:
    operations:
      instantiate:
        implementation: instantiate-script
          inputs:
            script_input_1: value_1
            script_input_2: value_2
----
No tags attached.
Issue History
21-11-2023 11:39Sujeet BanerjeeNew Issue
15-05-2024 14:41lishiNote Added: 0016657

Notes
(0016657)
lishi   
15-05-2024 14:41   
The 'implementation' and 'inputs' keynames specified in TOSCA-Simple-Profile-YAML-v1.3 [20] for an operation definition. The TOSCA operation definition (basic type) is defined in the TOSCA spec,
<operation_name>:
   description: <operation_description>
   implementation: <Operation implementation definition>
   inputs:
     <property_definitions>
      outputs:
         <attribute mappings>
here you can find implemention and input. Although some of the keynames are not defined in SOL001 spec, it is sitll valid when used in a VNFD. THat is the main reason we add this sentence as an additional requirements.