Attendees

Agenda

Looking good, no incomplete tasks.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bssIi2HC8jUQxl37olBj3fsdyESzILlXJPi2bXo0X2I/edit?usp=sharing
Response was "ok" but there was not a lot of feedback received. No negative feedback was received.
Message of "projects need to drive / shape program requirements" was carried well in the presentation.
From the LFN Board Meeting, the "Anuket Assured" branding was approved.

Jim was raised the idea of development a survey
Current feeling is, participation in Anuket should indicate the end user interest in the banging program
Additionally the go/no-go decision should help with verification of the requirements set
Agreement to not develop a specific survey at this time

Recommend to the project to develop a set of CNF compliance requirements.
The modeling team is potentially taking the role of developing these requirements, as part of the I-release
Proposal on the results format, for the specific information that should be includes as part of the test results
- https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Anuket+Assured+-+ONAP+CNF+Compliance+Badge
- Test ID - Traceable to the requirements (i.e. defined by modelling subcommittee, etc.)
- What needs to be defined and agreed is the information model / requirements with each test results, then we can verify if xTesting results and other tool output meets those requirements.
- Kanagaraj Manickam will lead an effort to standardize the results requirements in terms of the information included with each test result or test case output.
- We will need to do a gap analysis of the above, compared with the current xTesting output / structure, as well as how requirements are being traced within the RC-1 and RC-2 documentation today.

Anuket Assured Re-Launch Release Plan
Badge categories vs badge attributes to deal with different requirements set (i.e. ONAP requirements vs Anuket RC-2 requirements).
- Need to limit the total number of badges, to keep it simple / consumable for the end users, but we do need to differentiate the different testing times.
- Jim Baker will development a problem statement to work through with the Marketing team (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1bssIi2HC8jUQxl37olBj3fsdyESzILlXJPi2bXo0X2I/edit#slide=id.gc5a22d6b74_0_6).
- Once we have a specific proposal with the badges from marketing committee, we could then present this to the community (EUAG / TAC)
Need to make it clear, which project releases would be reflected by the 2021 July badges. Could this drive a 2021 roadmap, for what comes beyond the July release (i.e. remainder of 2021 and possibly longer).