Create README.md for Discovery folder with intents #128
Conversation
Added mapping of each API to intents
Kevsy
requested review from
gunjald,
crissancas,
FabrizioMoggio and
sergiofranciscoortiz
as code owners
|
Fixes #129 |
|
Some of the intents included in the README for Discovery API may also be included or fit better in one of the other API groups: 5 "I can ask the operator to provision my application server to the optimal MEC for a specific terminal..." - As it talks about provision could fit on WorkloadOrchestration 24 “I can map an application’s requirements to the best MEC for hosting it, based on application demands for CPU,Memory,Storage,GPU,bandwith,Network forecast, mobility” _(aligns with 4,5,8,9) - Could also be included in Workload Orchestration |
| 5. "I can ask the operator to provision my application server to the optimal MEC for a specific terminal, taking into account connectivity, resources (e.g. vCPU, Memory, network interfaces, storage, GPU) shortest network path, cost, network load, MEC platform load, application privacy considerations etc." | ||
| * "I can ask the operator to provision my application server to all MECs that meet these criteria (note this is not focussing on a specific terminal)" | ||
| * "I can ask the operator to provision my application server to a minimal set of MECs that meet these criteria across a given footprint (note this is not focussing on a specific terminal)" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think these intents related to provisioning should be moved to the Workload Orchestration API, otherwise this Discovery API risks becoming a superset of the Workload Orchestration API. There are quite a few Workload Orchestration APIs around artifacts, files, apps, appinstances, etc that would need to be duplicated here to be able to support these intents. I think it would be better to keep the APIs as independent as possible.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@maheshc01 please can you advise on @sergiofranciscoortiz and @gainsley Jon's questions above? Not sure if MEC Exposure & Experience Management is exclusively Discovery or arguably overlaps into Workload Orchestration.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes. i am good with moving this intent to workload orchestration as the intent specifically highlights need for provisioning.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As commented during calls I think it make sense to move intent 5 to workload orchestration, as for intent 24 it can stay in discovery although it might be considered duplicated with other intents already included.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@sergiofranciscoortiz all commnets above now reflected with a new commit to the README in this PR, now ready to merge.
|
@sergiofranciscoortiz please can you merge if you are happy with the changes made following the discussion? Then I can delete the branch. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Accepted changes to facilitate branch removal, but since the discussion in October of what intents are covered by which sub api there have been relevant changes.
Now the goal is to merge current SED API with MVP API that already covers some of the intents included in this README ( for example intent 1), so we may need to reorganize the folder structure for resultant APIs.
Added mapping of each API to intents
Fixes issue #129