Attendees & Representation (default sort: member first name)

TAC Members and Project representatives should mark their attendance below 

Community:

Agenda

• We will start by mentioning the project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.
  • Antitrust Policy
• Roll Call
• Check Action Items & Topic Requests
• General Topics
  • Documentation refresh approval vote
  • D&TF Recap
  • 2024 Priorities continuation
  • Security outreach
• Any Other Topics

Action items

• Casey Cain Amy Zwarico to create a regular security team meeting 24 Nov 2023 

Minutes

Documentation Refresh approval

• There is a call to resolve the approval of refreshed documentation
  • There are still some outstanding comments in the documentation
  • Questions were raised how some of the usage of Mandatory was used in documentation that is supposed to be recommendations
    • There was an agreement to leave the wording for now and continue to review projects on a case-by-case basis
• RESOLVED: The TAC agrees to vote on the documentation refresh
  • vote - LFN Getting Started & Lifecycle Documentation Refresh
  • #agreed the TAC approves the resolution

D&TF Recap

• Kenny noted that the event was small, but  extremely positive.
• Conversations being held at the D&TF proved again how these in-person engagement improves our ability to effectively communicate, breaks down barriers to collaboration and improve our development process.
• Strong participation from Asia which was great!  
  • expressed gratitude for having the event in a neutral country
  • have concerns about their ability to attend upcoming ONE Summit & D&TF in San Jose.
• We had roughly 35 no-shows which is higher that expected - We will be sending out a questionnaire to determine why.
• What was the impact of Nephio Summit being inserted a month before the D&TF?
  • We initially had prepared for the Nephio Summit to be a track at the D&TF anticipating a lot of new attendees
  • Registered D&TF no-shows that attended the Nephio summit was only 1 person
  • There were ~65 Nephio Summit only attendees that would not have otherwise attended the D&TF 
  • The next D&TF will be in April, co-located with the ONE Summit.
  • Nephio will be a part of all future D&TF and not have an independent event
• There was a general agreement that he in-person nature is better than struggling with time zones for virtual attendance
  • It may be that 4 days may be too long. 
  • Robert suggested that we have more hackathons
  • It was also suggested that we backload our more "popular" sessions and move our smaller but important topics and projects to the front of the event.
• Muddasar Ahmed  suggested that we add a survey question about how many attendees are requested to work on other things while attending the event.
  
  • We should also suggest that people who have restrictions on the days that they can attend at least attend some of the planning committee sessions
  • We also need more engagement at the planning committee
• Muddasar noted that in some sessions it was hard to hear the attendees questions.  It would be better if speakers could be better prepared to repeat questions for remote attendees. 
• Olaf Renner should there be a short summary of technical sessions so we know what session were discussed and how they fit into our future planning and objectives?
  
  • Kenny Paul in the past we held daily summary talks which has had varying degrees of success and we've abandoned that.
    
    • However, collecting that information is still of value. 
    • This question lead into the 2024 Priorities discussion

D&TF Session recap applied to our 2024 Priorities 

AI Taskforce

• Nephio use cases
  • as an orchestrator of AI/ML
  • Security Orchestration
  • IoT deployments and cloud/edge connectivity 
  • Was some outreach to opentofu to being in some data sets
  • Some conversations with L3AF relief to eBPF
•  ONAP intent based use cases

Security

• There was discussion of extending SBOM information to list vulnerabilities 
• There was a discussion about how we use SBOMs today
  • Reporting and governance needs are different across the projects
  • We should reach out to the projects again to continue to refine and update our centralized location for security information on the LFN wiki at LFN Security Forum.
  • It may be that we need to have a specific security forum calls with them providing updates to the TAC.
    • Muddasar suggested that they security teams from the projects meet monthly and then provide updates back to the TAC.
    • Timo Perala There is a new security SIG in Nephio.  It would be good support if there was a LFN Security community that discussed these topics.
    • Amy Zwarico Casey Cain action item to create a regular meeting for the LFN project security teams to meet and discus issues.

 6G

• There is some standardization expected next year, but we don't know how that will apply to LFN projects.  We should keep this a lower priority for now and see how things develops in 2024.  
• Muddasar Ahmed does not believe the standard for 6G will be published until close to 2028.  AI is a much higher priority. 
  
  • Muddasar is coordinating with industry stakeholders and will provide recommendations in the future

Edge

• Nephio is a good starting point.  How should the TAC approach Edge
  • Muddasar Ahmed suggests that we look at the capabilities of Edge and assess what capabilities that we have and what we are missing. 
    
    • This should help us identify where we can align across our projects. 
    • Olaf Renner should we leverage 5GSBP for this?  We should look at more "implementable" use cases. 
    • Muddasar agreed, we should sync with ETSI is developing.