Discussion items

10minInterim TSC Election plansScot Steele
20minRelease artifact discuss and agree

Deferred for Mark Beierl presence


Business coordination function

  • Scope and life span
  • How to get involved

Follow up needed after defintion  


Release process and naming

  • same name for spec release and test release?
    • Spec rel FOO has a RC release 6mo later also called FOO
    • OR RC release FOO_1..FOO_n implement the Spec FOO

10minRole of InstallersTrevor Cooper
10minConformance projects - what they deliverTrevor CooperDefer for Release Artifacts disussion
2minProposed Wiki Structure


Interim TSC plans

  • OPNFV providing 8 members from the seated TSC as selected by the active community members
  • CNTT will wait for completion of the OPNFV proposed interim TSC membership
    • Look for equitable distribution of seats between operators and vendors for Anuket TSC
  • This is for a INTERIM TSC ONLY - not a permanent change

Business Coordination Function

  • Expect a short term function - up to two years. Can continue as needed.
  • Volunteer staffed - likely to be the same folks that are staffing the Anuket MeldMarketing 
  • Focused on the initial project spin-up. Eventually absorbed by MAC function
  • Trevor Cooper Please write down the scope and responsibility of this function
    • CNTT equates Governance to Business Coordination
  • Notes from Scot Steele
    • Strategy, Participant interface; On-boarding, escalation point for complex, inter-related issues; Virtual Conference mgmt, other Admin tasks, Coordination with other projects, Recruitment

Release Process and Naming

  • Key problem statement: How do we use naming to unify the specification versions with subsequent releases of the RC?
  • Georg Kunz Joint release planning between the spec developers and the RC developers could address this.
  • Trevor Cooper It's dependency management. 
    • RC project does not equal the OVP program
      • RC develops test cases and tools to test RA requirements - unlikely to ever deliver 100% of the requirements - MUST be decoupling and independent projects
  • Lincoln Lavoie RC is a work stream of individual projects - not a single entity
    • Perhaps RC should handle the traceability and coverage mapping - by definition it will lag the specification version
    • What is the stated goal of the lag?
    • The specifications are a monotonically increasing list (moving target)
    • RC may not always track the increase in feature sets
  • David McBride  propose decoupling of specification and RC releases
    • Likewise use different naming to avoid assumptions of RC fulling implementing a specific RA version
  • Lincoln Lavoie RA/RM release Q1 and Q3, RI/RC release on Q2 and Q4
    • 4 releases per year: 2 spec focused and 2 test focused
    • RC must provide 100% coverage of RI - for whatever features that are implemented in the RI
  • Georg Kunz There will always be a gap/offset
  • Heather Kirksey Could create a longer release process that just makes the spec a milestone in a longer release cycle. 
  • Al Morton  Community is asking for more synchronized processes
    • 3 month is not sufficient for developing response to the specifications - far shorter than prior OPNFV releases
    • Possibly overlap the last 3 months of spec dev with first 3 months testing development
  • David McBride Concern is development of specifications will outpace the development of tests
  • Jim Baker  FOCUS is first 3 months of 2021

Role of Installers

  • Trevor Cooper Role of installers has been an issue in the history of OPNFV
    • Proposed statement: Installers are NOT a part of a release. They are a tool to create an RI
    • OPNFV Jerma has one installer: Airship - it is unclear that this installer meets all the needs of the community
  • Georg Kunz Installers may be released as a part of "RI"
    • How many installers and sets of components (RIs) does Anuket want to support?
      • Would prefer ONE RI to pool resources
  • Trevor Cooper Airship project is a stand-alone tool - it doesn't deliver a RI
    • RI is delivered as a cookbook or method for deploying the RI
  • Georg Kunz Would like to use an RI in the internal testing process for commercial xNFs
  • Trevor Cooper Propose deferring the decision to the Release Artifacts discussion
  • Al Morton There are many ways to end up with a RI as defined by the RA and validated as correct by RC

1 Comment

  1. Anonymous