Date

Attendees



Minutes

 Revision of EUAG Mission Statement Marc Fiedler

  • comfortable with Charter
  • Problem statement: Agenda driven by LFN staff - not members
  • lack of continuity since launch in 2018
  • recordings & minutes being public impacts discussions
  • Surveys have been mix and match and the targets have been unclear/misleading
  • Topics have not had an impact on features of LFN projects
  • Mission Statement for EUAG 2.0 draft:
    • focus on most relevant topics within the LFN
    • Collecting the requirements from the SPs (Modeling, Testing , etc.)
    • Share expectations and experiences of activities (POCs, MVPs, RFPs)
    • Set the agenda for the industry for fully automateable capable and adaptable solutions
    • Align on requirements and support to LFN subcommittees
      • Time to market
      • Revenue
      • Performance, usability, reliability...
      • Compliance, Auditing, Security...
  • Way forward 2019/2020
    • Kick off the EUAG 2.0 (possibly) at the DDF in Stockholm June 2019
    • Establish an operating mode that can influence/support the PTLs/subcommittee
    • Bi-weekly calls with rotating moderation by members
    • Action item tracking
    • Reviews quarterly on DDF/OSN meetings - focus points/progress
    • Report to the LFN GB/TAC/TSCs


Review the homework

 Atul Purohit Focus areas Vodafone

  • Carrier priorities ONAP
    • Functional/nonfumctinal (liaison w/ usecase sub committee) deployment related
  • State of Play
    • Production examples
    • PoC examples
  • Cross Carrier initiatives
    • Ex-BBS
    • EX - CCVPN
    • Use case focus? Not only use cases - feel free to use other examples
  • Distribution Strategy

Ryan Hallahan Focus area AT&T

  • Carrier priorities ONAP (roughly in priority order)
    • ONAP
    • Platform maturity
      • defect backlog
      • 3rd party vulnerabilities
      • Faster release cadence
      • improve tool-chain infrastructure
      • CII silver badging
      • Increase and expand unit test code coverage
      • Address critical project specific tech debt
      • Improve documentation (eg. all APIs fully documented)
    • control loop enhancements
      • operations automation
      • model driven control loop design (had addition materials - not presented)
    • VNF validation 
      • Description clarity
      • create and maintain a set of VNF requirements (had addition materials - not presented)
    • 5G/PNF support
    • VNF/PNF Change Management
  • State of Play
  • Cross Carrier Initiatives

Marc-Alexandre Choquette Focus areas for Bell Canada

  • Carrier priorities ONAP
    • serviceability for config and control loop
      • missing/limited configuration capabilities
      • not model driven config
      • DGs not in line w/ operational needs
      • Limited/hard-coded closed loop function
      • limited data collection
      • DMaaP REST APIs rather than native Kafka client
      • no capabilities/framework for data enrichment
      • heavy/broken collector and analytics
    • platform maturity
      • No component level maturity assessment
      • something similar to CNCF model would be good.
        • should not be a required component until a certain level of maturity is in place
      • Content vs. code - not model driven
      • S3P tighter security
      • scalability fo high volume components (DCAE, DMaaP, controllers)
    • upgradability - on major ONAP releases
    • platform simplification (using exiting tech vs. new build) - too complex, too convoluted 
    • End user documentation and overall experience
  • Self-Serviceability 


Suggest a 2 hour meeting next time

Action items

  • Jim Baker send out a poll for a 2 hr meeting next time
  •