Attendees:
Community: Beth Cohen Ahmed El Sawaf Chuyi Guo Herbert Damker Ryan Hallahan Saad Ullah Sheikh David Perez Caparros Guy Meador Vincent Colas
LFN: user-20f1f Jim Baker Kenny Paul Heather Kirksey
Survey results: Compliance and Verification Program Survey and OVP beta program
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 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.
- 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
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"