| Table of Contents |
|---|
No recording this week - no host privilege on Phil's bridge
Attendees:
Community: Atul Purohit Saad Ullah Sheikh David Perez CaparrosChuyi Guo Ryan HallahanBeth Cohen Ahmed El Sawaf Olivier Augizeau Vincent Colas Herbert Damker Guy Meador Vincent Colas
Guests: Catherine Lefevre
LFN: David McBride Jim Baker
Survey results: Compliance and Verification Program Survey and OVP beta program
- Heather Kirksey
Review the survey results
- VNF implementation, compliance testing, NFVI /VIM compliance tope responses
- Heather Kirksey need confirmation on the algorithms - used surveymonkey stack ranking type]
- Heather Kirksey look into providing the information as a list.
- 66% of responses said they were planning to use both HEAT and TOSCA templates
- Beth Cohen believes that within a company different BUs may be using different models based upon history
- Herbert Damker feels "HEAT is the language of today" and TOSCA will be the language of the future. Openstack is in use and currently uses Heat.
- Q: is ONAP in production anywhere? A: Ryan Hallahan Yes, ONAP in production
ONS NA and CVC joint meeting - unconference
- Intention use the feedback from the EUAG to feed into roadmaps and inputs to the technical communities
- If EUAG members cannot attend, please consider sending a proxy
- Targeting Weds afternoon for meetup at ONS
- CANCELLED EUAG stand-alone unconference to focus attention on the CVC interactions
ONAP Use cases / functional requirements for the next release (R5, El Alto) David Perez Caparros
- ONAP looking for input from EUAG (Fall 2019) . This week the ONAP R5 discussions have started, cul
- Currently under consideration : Scalaing Backlog and Roadmap, Control-Loop backlog, and 5G Use cases
- Ryan Hallahan Dublin was well over-subscribed - need to get more developers active to knock out the list we already have
- Heather Kirksey concerned over the lack of diversity on ONAP compliance projects -
- David Perez Caparros would we have time for a survey before ONS?
- Kenny Paul Much technical debt in ONAP, some are considering a tic/toc model to address this.
- See unconference about the ONAP El Alto release hosted by Catherine Lefevre
- Get feedback from the ONAP TSC leadership on how to best provide EUAG priorities for El Alto Jim Baker
ONAP consumption process - Round Table
- Internal test/verification
- lifecycle of a single version
- internal repackaging/customizing
- Ryan Hallahan response on ONAP deployment process
- Not all of ONAP used in production (subset of components) - focused on E-COMP components (Heat based flow)
- not running ONAP "straight out of the box" but not really expected that anyone will
- Beth Cohen Wouldn't except any telcomm to run ONAP right "out of the box"
- AT&T had a couple year head start as E-COMP was internally developed BEFORE ONAP
- Ryan HallahanFiguring out how to consume the new contributions from the community is the challenge.
- Have a team merging and testing new contributions.
- Have some AT&T specific contributions that are kept internal - 2 way merge
- There a couple of projects that are only AT&T contributions that are easy to consume, and others that are very diverse that need to be merged into AT&T base on a ~weekly schedule
- Cloning and merges can be automated but merge conflicts need to be addressed by hand obviously
- want as much in the community as possible, but there are AT&T cloud specific that needs to be internally addressed
- Some refactoring and automation can help, don't think that human merges are avoidable.
- Beth Cohen Because Verizon is always "pulling" ONAP, the 2-way merge is not as much as an issue
- user-20f1f Expect some operators to consume ONAP directly from a vendor (turnkey) - expect to see the full spectrum of make/buy
- Ryan Hallahan Yes, pull/2-way merge is a legacy of how ONAP evolved AND internal cloud uniqueness
- Tailor ONAP to the environment?
- Heather Kirksey What percentage of ONAP would be specific to your environment? What would be you goal? Realistic ideal?
- Beth Cohen always eval build vs. buy - if ~70% is buy then it makes sense and then work on customization
Chat log
EUAG Working Group proposal - Atul Purohit
Summary: Review of the current EUAG process and suggestions for a path forward to create more focus and relevance for the EUAG based on the voice of the carriers with a focus on the ONAP/OPNFV
How does the common NFVi task force interact with this? David McBride
- Larger scope - includes ONAP and OPNFV
Common NFVi task force is outside the standards bodies? Herbert Damker
- Not just AT&T - includes Verizon et.al.
- OVP focused on VNF packages
How operators will combine to define a common NFVi remains to be seen - future focus Ryan Hallahan
Vendor strategy - will there be a clear deliverable? Is this lock in to a single set of components? Saad Ullah Sheikh
What does "vendor strategy" mean? Guy Meador
- what do we want from our vendors to help with the design?
- there are vendors that do not contribute to ONAP - use carrier alignment to drive vendor engagement
- Carriers articulate their consumption model - and set that as an expectation for the vendors (set of tests? expected capabilities?)
Be cautious of the ground rules of anti-competitive behaviours Guy Meador
- bias towards technical requirements NOT vender strategy
We're a set of carriers, find areas of commonality and use that to communicate more clearly to out vendors Ryan Hallahan
A set of action items are embedded in the slides Atul Purohit
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
El Alto release process proposal - Catherine Lefevre
Summary: The El Alto release could be shortened and focus on internal (tech) debt and defect backlogs. A proposed release cycle is presented.
Next steps: Reviewing at the ONAP TSC call 2019-04-11
Some e2e use cases are useful but too specific - would like to build our own use cases - would like more "ala carte" use cases (modularity) - is this a possible component of El Alto? Olivier Augizeau
- Yes, this is exactly the type of info that the EUAG should be providing - please continue to provide this type of feedback.
| View file | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Chat log
09:00:08 From Guy Meador (Cox) : Sorry that I joined late today. Here is a perspective on the EUAG “Proposed Re-Boot” topic. If we in the EUAG have members who desire to create and support the activities outlined for a sub-working group focused on “ONAP/OPNFV”, that is a good sub-team to create as a part of the LFN EUAG; doing so would not require a re-chartering of LFN EUAG; would prefer not re-chartering LFN EUAG
09:02:43 From Guy Meador (Cox) : Re: “EUAG Re-Chartering”: to be clear, and in summary, I would support the creation of a sub-team/activity of “ONAP/OPNFV EUAG Working Group” but not re-chartering of LFN EUAG. Having the sub-group would be of value to the ONAP/OPNFV community and allow the operator community to engage at a more tactical level with ONAP/OPNFV.
09:03:05 From Guy Meador (Cox) : ONAP “tic-to” releases makes sense to me
09:03:08 From Atul Purohit (Vodafone) : That is the idea, not to re-chart LFN EUAG, but within the confines of current - start a reboot to make it more meaningful. Thanks Guy
09:03:14 From Guy Meador (Cox) : “Tic-Toc”08:30:16 From David Perez (Swisscom) : https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Release+5+%28El+Alto+%29proposed+use+cases+and+functional+requirements
08:30:23 From David Perez (Swisscom) : https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/SP+priorities+for+Dublin
08:37:04 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/SP+priorities+for+Dublin
08:47:20 From Herbert Damker (DT) to Jim Baker (LFN) (Privately) : in my statement above it should be "future" instead of "feature"