You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 75 Next »

June 22nd, 2020 - Day 1 

ONAP Track

Key Points

Challenges

 Next Steps/Action Items

Track: Requirements Subcommittee meeting and presentation of Guilin planned work

Presenter/Moderator: Alla Goldner

  •  9 non functional requirements have been prioritized up to now by the ONAP TSC for Guilin, requesting support from companies who are submitting usecase/functional reqs. How can we implement additional non functional requirements?
  • Partial solution will also been discussed as a Cross-Community topic at 2.30pm UTC on Monday June 22nd, 2020- Help Recruit more Developers to LFN Projects! 
  • Architecture Component Views in Readthedocs planned on Wednesday June 24th, 2020 at 3pm UTC to align with swagger work
  • PTLs/Non functional reqs Owners on PTL call (6/29) to assess what can we agree with the project teams for Guilin either as additional TSC MUST Have and/or CI-Gating, etc.
Track: License compliance & how to deal with it?

Presenter/Moderator: Krzysztof OpasiakCatherine Lefevre

Details regarding Non functional requirements REQ-379, REQ-380  - https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/License+compliance

The list of "Base Image statistics" can be enhanced as long as the ONAP Community will maintain it.


  •  Organize a TSC vote on the list of licenses that can be used within ONAP containers i.e. approved licenses means which once we agree to comply with, in terms of license terms for distribution in docker containers
  • PTLs to confirm the comments in Green regarding "Upstream dockers in ONAP Nexus Server" section
  • Define a list of approved base images
  • Do the license compliance process for all approved base images
  • Make sure that all components use only approved base images

Track: Integration Status update: what's planned internally

Presenter/Moderator: Morgan Richomme 

  • Bring back your functional tests in your project repo
  • Integrate automated CSIT/Pair-Wise tests as part of OOM Gating
  • Refactor component's healthcheck 
  • Use reference images to build your dockers - also discussed in the previous session 'License compliance & how to deal with it?'
  • Release more often (prior M4) but do not break the build
  • Additional sessions are organising by the Integration team this week to discuss their Guilin requirements


  • PTLs/Integration on PTL call (6/29) to discuss how to release more often prior M4 (conditions, regression and healcheck ok, rollback procedure, etc.)

Reviewed current modeling activities and candidate modeling requirements for Guilin.

The following topics were also presented:

1 Modeling process

2 Policy model

3 Slicing model

4 CNF Inventory Modeling 

5 CNF ETSI modeling overview

6 Modeling of Geolocation information


Recording may be found at: LNF_June_vDTF-ONAP-_Modeling_Subcommittee.mp4


invite to join those discussions

Track: Policy Framework Guilin Prioritization

Presenter/Moderator: Pamela Dragosh

  • The former Policy architecture will be deprecated in order to embrace the new Self-Serve Policy Architecture developed from Dublin to Frankfurt.
  • Presentation of the major Policy Guilin requirements including E2E Network Slicing, 5G OOF SON and improvements
  • Policy team is in the process of creating Tutorials for the ONAP community to view to understand how to use the Policy Platform

https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/2020+Frankfurt+Tutorials
 Cross Community Track Key PointsChallenges  Next Steps/Action Items

Track: Help Recruit more Developers to LFN Projects!

Presenters/Moderators: 

Jason HuntAbhijit KumbhareAl MortonCatherine LefevreMorgan RichommeRanny Haiby

  • Presentation of Open Source Community Challenges and Attempted Approaches
  • Overall 3 topics:
    • Recruiting "casual developer"
    • Building pipeline via academics, students, interns
    • Encouraging more corporate contributions
  • Badging/Certification to recognize Developers/Testers for their contribution
  • detailed notes Help Recruit more Developers to LFN Projects! 2020-06-22

  • Any volunteer to flesh out these ideas
  • How to implement in each LFN Open Community?
CNTT/OPNFV Track Key PointsChallenges  Next Steps/Action Items
OPNFV Kick-off, and Round-Robin Project Reviews


So far, so good!Need to use this Wiki Page for Day two and beyond, for notes etc.

CNTT Kickoff with Baraque Release 

Rabi Abdel

  • Feature set for Baraque release explained and work item focus.
  • Success Criteria discussed for Baraque release.
  • FMO discussion (Scot Steele)

Please attend all CNTT sessions and participate in the discussion. 

June 23rd, 2020 - Day 2

 Cross Community Track

Key Points

Challenges

 Next Steps/Action Items

Track: Shift to Release Train

Presenters/Moderators: Catherine Lefevre 

›The Challenges from LFN Projects

›Release Cadence in Other Open Source projects

>Shift to Release Train & Brainstorming

Wiki notes: Shift to Release Train 2020-06-23

›How can we release more frequently, smaller scope without impacting the SW quality?

›How can we change the waterfall-ish development model?

›How can we get enough details about candidates requirements prior the release?

›How to manage the release in case of people turn-over?

›How to handle the scope and maintain a balance between Usecase/Functional reqs (attractive) and Non functional reqs (less sexy)?

  •  Identify a set of projects that could prototype the Release Train approach
  •  “Release cadence transition proposal” on June 25th, 2020 @ 11am UTC

Track: XGVela

Presenters/Moderators: Qihui Zhao


  •  Alignment with CNTT/CNCF TUG and O-RAN/ONAP in order to define their role as part of XGVela and identify what can be leveraged from the existing projects
  • Introduction of XGVela to the TAC team

Track: Cloud Native in Telecom Cloud

Presenters/Moderators: Qihui Zhao, Ying Li

 

  • Plan to align with CNTT RA-2 (Kubernetes)

  • Alignment with CNTT/CNCF TUG and O-RAN/ONAP in order to define their role as part of XGVela and identify what can be leveraged from the existing projects
  • Introduction of XGVela to the TAC team
 ONAP Track Key Points Challenges  Next Steps/Action Items

OOM Status update: what's planned internally

Presenters/Moderators: Sylvain Desbureaux, Krzysztof Opasiak

Review of the planned OOM changes :

Support of Helm V3

Kubernetes V1.17 (or 1.18)

Migrate to Seccom recommended Versions

Update defaults (use Ingress, Storage Class, Hardened OS)

Might be breaking gating during changes, impact deploymentscheck if Helm V3 requires Kubernetes v1.17+

OOM Status update: consequences on other components

Presenters/Moderators: Sylvain Desbureaux, Krzysztof Opasiak

Review of the required changes on components helm charts VS requirements

presentation of changes, use of templates, adding appender to Logback to support STDOUT as additional output

Container that do not contain ONAP code should not be hosted on Nexus

No Root access to DB

Application config should be fully prepared before starting the container

Containers must crash properly when a failure occurs

No more Nodeports

AAF optional (component should work without AAF even in degraded mode)

HTTPS is mandatory but should be configurable (disable in case of Service Mesh as this will be offloaded to Service Mesh)

Container RootFS should be mounted as ReadOnly

Commit message rules for OOM

AAF removal or optional / POC SMeshSecCom to follow up and define what disabling AAF means 

Requirements Traceability:  Initial Request through TSC Approval

Presenters/Moderators: Alla Goldner, Chaker Al-Hakim, Pawel Pawlak, Pamela Dragosh, David McBride, Catherine Lefevre

  • brainstorming and discussion on aligning the ONAP requirements pipeline 
  • Consensus:
    • any requirements- regardless of source- should go through the requirements subcommittee.
    • and euag submits requirements to req. sub where they are vetted
    • committee consolidates backlog
    • committee should make prioritization recommendations to the TSC

wiki: 2020 June vDTF ONAP Requirements Traceability: Initial Request through TSC Approval

  • How can we streamline the requirements coming from different sources inside and outside from the ONAP Community?
  • As an example, EUAG → REq Subcommittee prioritirised → (Architecture Review) → TSC 
  • Enhance the mission of the Requirements Subcommittee:
    • Act as the ONAP Product Owners 
    • Recommend Prioritization to the TSC
    • Create the consolidated ONAP Backlog

The presentation covers Frankfurt CNF instantiation improvements on vFW use case example

  • Changed modelling of the vFW CNF - split into 4 helm packages to benefit from CDS resource assignment
  • Change from a'la Carte VNF-API instantiation flow into Macro GR-API with CDS
  • Utilization of CDS for automatic assignment of Helm package overrides
  • CDS uploads optionally profile which allows for further helm enrichment like extra k8s resources

Use Case Doc: https://onap-doc.readthedocs.io/projects/onap-integration/en/latest/docs_vFW_CNF_CDS.html#docs-vfw-cnf-cds

Notes: 2020 June vDTF ONAP vFW CNF use case evolution

  • We lack of the use case automation scripts, however, there is very good documentation + postman collection
  • We leverage VNF flow in SO and still, we need to use dummy heat templates in the onboarding package
  • vFW use case requires dedicated k8s cluster with virtlet, ovn4k8s and multus
  • Data in AAI is still not synchronized with k8s
  • Status of instantiated resources is not monitored by SO and
  • vFW CNF Use case automation with robot scripts and use of modern VID UI
  • Support of Close Loop
  • https://jira.onap.org/browse/REQ-341 - CNF SO orchestration Enhancements
  • Potentially new use case: VNF + CNF Heterogeneous service and/or pure CNF (without a need of specific k8s cluster setup)

Orchestration of 5G CNFs using Multicloud K8s plugin

Presenter: Sandeep Sharma

  • Walkthrough of how ONAP was used to instantiate a 5G Core CNF.
  • More details & a demo are available in the Webinar that this team did

  • Did use SDC and MultiCloud K8S plugin, but did not use SO.  Did have one manual step.
  • Container image was in a local K8S repository, not bundled in the service package

Python ONAP SDK

Presenter: Michal Jagiello

Version 1.0 of the SDK was released and will be available using pip.

Presentation provided an overview of the project capabilities:

  • Communication and handling with ONAP services using HTTP/S APIs
  • High level of abstraction
  • Easy to use, even if you don't know what is possible "underneath"

SDK requires Python 3.7 or higher and was tested with ONAP Frankfurt.


  • Add handling for the macro flow
  • migrate onap_tests repository to pythonsdk_tests
  • Add close loop examples coming in next versions

 Frankfurt Post Mortem

Presenter : David McBride

 Review Frankfurt Schedule changes & pain points 

  •  number of shifts in schedule (not so much the total delay) raised concerns
  •  scope size (do we take in too much?) 
  •  very late avail of final dockers 
  •  use case not clear if they are leveraging or need more ONAP dev - cannot know until actually running it
  •  self release is painful, takes time for multi sub projects
  •  Lots of remaining open bugs at M4
  •  Observations on certificates, exceptions to milestones

 

Release more frequently VS time


  •  Move to a more continous approach
  •  Release at each milestone ? with working small steps
  •  At RC0 provide %age completed, which ones are not done yet?
  CNTT Track Key PointsChallengesNext Steps/Action Items
Performance (Joint with OPNFV)
  • Great Discussion around performance and it's relation to CNTT.
  • Discussion to be continued with Al Morton , Trevor Cooper, and Mark Beierl during CVC using Al proposed 4-tier structure (described below):
    • Functional tests lead to Performance tests of the functions.  A subset of the most important performance tests are elevated to Benchmark status (with more precise specifications of methods, etc.). Acceptance thresholds could be established for "Performance Conformance", if agreed.

  • Continue discussion in CVC.
  • Map 4-tier structure to CNTT.
Traceability Test Cases (Joint with OPNFV)
  • Great progress demonstrated by Cedric Ollivierto cover RA-1/RC-1 Requirements


Use cases of SDN solution
  • Interesting and detailed presentation by Ying Li and Shasha Guo of SDN implementations for several use cases like Traffic Mirroring and Routing Configuration, showing code snipets, network diagrams and parameter mappings


Field Trial Status (Joint with OPNFV)
  • Presentation by Cedric Ollivier - update on the CNTT Field Trial.  CNTT RC changelog from Baldy presented (9 out of 2000 single tests removed) - good outcome. Orange IAAS: 10 remaining single test failures, targeting mid-July to complete. RC is ready to use by vendors and operators.


Next CNTT OpenStack Release & Cyborg Acceleration Mgmt
  • Presentation on CNTT OpenStack Release selection by Pankaj Goyal et al, and second half by Shasha Guo on Cyborg Acceleration Mgmt.
  • OSTK Pike was selected in Paris, but the next version was selected by a formal process and against defined criteria, the process started at Baldy vF2F in April 2020.  Train met the selection criteria and is recommended as the next CNTT OSTK version. Recommendation: utilize Ussuri OSTK release for Cyborg API v2.0 service (as it is incompatible with Train). Upstream: Cyborg should fix their API in Train release as per OpenStack policy.
  • Discussion whether CNTT should jump straight to Ussuri to avoid back porting problems for Cyborg. An option for consideration for TSC (the only criterion not met by Ussuri is 6+ month requirement)
  • Shasha Guo and Ying Li on Cyborg acceleration: presented scenarios why we need to use Cyborg, and Cyborg enhancement requirements for CNTT.

As a result of the discussion, the next step will be to present an option of moving straight to Ussuri. Action on Pankaj Goyal
  OPNFV Track Key PointsChallengesNext Steps/Action Items
<Many CNTT meetings were Joint with OPNFV Today!>See above - Scheduling was a non-challenge again today!

OPNFV TSC Meeting
  • Agenda
  • 2020-2021 Community Elections proceeding, TSC members are elected, Leadership position elections are the next steps.
  • New Project Review on RI-2 in OPNFV, Wiki vote will proceed this week.
  • TSC Roles and Responsibilities reviewed with the Community.
  • OPNFV Internal Project Periodic Reviews continue (Project life-cycle assessment is also an outcome of TSC oversight)
  • Key meetings/sessions on OPNFV Release Process and CIRV Software Demo later this week (Wednesday)
  • Next Week: Review of feedback from the June Governing Board meeting.

Need to clarify OPNFV interactions with CVC/OVP: this entity was not formed yet at the time OPNFV was Chartered.

June 24th, 2020 - Day 3

Track

Key Points

Challenges

 Next Steps/Action Items

Track: 

Moderator: xxx




 

Track: 

Moderator: xxx




June 25th, 2020 - Day 4

TrackKey PointsChallengesNext Steps/Action Items

Track: 

Moderator: xxx

 




Track: 

Moderator: xxx



  •  
  • No labels