Materials:
Attendees:
Topics/Notes:
- Anti-Trust Policies:
- Overview of previous agreements 10 min
- Agreed on Reduced scope on proposal materials for August 19th LFN GB meeting
- LFN GB will make final decision when they deem appropriate
- Timeline Discussion will be to determine what can be presented to the LFN GB on 19 Aug
- Status on proposals 10 min
- CNTT as a formal LFN project
- CNTT and OPNFV Merge
- CNTT as an LFN Committee (Similar to CVC and EUAG)
- Time frames 10 Min
- Projecting dates for reviews
- CNTT as a Committee - August 7
- CNTT as A formal project - August 7
- CNTT/OPNFV merging - 8/14
- Jim Baker and Scot Steele will prepare the presentation materials for GB meeting, should be able to have the time needed.
- Arpit Would like to preview documents, Jim will review time line with him.
- Open Discussion/Concerns
- Option Costs
- Scot Steele and Jim Baker - Costs may not be substantially different from option to option, Staff and Tech support will be the main components. It is important to be sure that the costs are accounted for, (which they are not right now). As a non profit, audits are a concern. Jim Bakerand Scot Steelewill continue to work on these issues.
- Open discussion
- Beth Cohen - Initial pass on presentation, does the proposal need to be 3 slides? Scot Steele not if all the points are covered, suggest speaker notes in the 1 slide should be fine.
- Question on Streams. Both 1 and 2 streams are included in the proposal. CNTT to develop specifications while ONPFV implements/validates
- Must consider the Ecosystem, not just individual teams
- Trevor Cooper all options must address the work, how it's getting done. "must address how the whole sausage is made" Beth Cohen concurred, there is a body of work exists and we need to address the body in the proposals, need to define
- Scot Steele Posited that that work is needed and may come after the GB makes a decision, For certain GB will provide direction.
- Qiao Fu We have to consider how the work will be governed. The board wants to see how we will manage going forward, regardless of the proposal. We have to show how the work will be successful, need to be collaborative, and people work in a good way.
- Scot Steele Work Product and Interfaces was to address this issue.
- Georg Kunz Can we understand what are the concerns of CNTT about the merging option
- CNTT is not a development group, they are architects and engineers. Concerned that they do not have developers to bring to the community
- Scot Steele CNTT represents the voice of the Operators
- Gergely Csatari - Writing isnt a given, Beth Cohen Understood, its a perception issue.
- Qiao Fu Issue of operator voice is a valid concern, and we must address the need for resources on the development side as well
- Prakash Ramchandran must have the labs for RI-1 and RI-2, Where is that to be addressed? And we need intern costs to be able to bring to the completion. Scot Steele We need to be sure address, UNH is onboard with provide labs, and a new IaaS provider
- Trevor Cooper - Labs from the the beginning of OPNFV - Was part of the participating companies investment. Labs are expensive to setup/admin. Important to address how we have and maintain labs. Scot Steele We should be considering attracting other service provider type of members. Prakash Ramchandran We should ask the service provider members now.
- Ildiko Vancsa CNTT as a separate entity options are not accounting for the development of specifications as the Merger option does, so we should ask those teams to address.
- Prakash Ramchandran - Do we need to continue CNTT? it was a short term taskforce. Beth Cohen Discussed that the leadership has changed and the need for CNTT work products are a gap that must be continue to be filled.
- Walter Kozlowski discussed the Eco system needs to be supported - Example, ODIM is needing CNTT support as a new project in LFN now.
