Versions Compared

Version Old Version 22 New Version 23
Changes made by

speedwyre

speedwyre

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Walk On Items
  • Governance – Baldy Priority Items
    • F2F Planning - Governance Topic Solicitation (Brian Bearden, Rick Tennant, Scot Steele)
      • AI - Add Session for Whitepaper
      • AI - Increase time for MMA to 120 mins
      • Possibly will not do plenary session with LFN, but can still do a CNTT-only plenary.
      • Optional - have an introduction/newbie onboarding session depending on how many folks need it. In a parallel session.
      • There is additional meeting space, tables, (atrium like) places to sit in open area–bring printouts.
  • Baldy Priority Items without owners
    • "Goal" Outline/define of what is needed in initial Field Trials from RC1/OVP #1100 - Brian Bearden
      • What is overall scope and requirements for Field Trial (Business perspective)
      • Who do we secure to do it
      • Define MVP Support model
      • Couple Operators 
        • Vendor Verizon is ready to do this.
      • Couple NFVI Vendors with labs
        • P1 - NFVI Vendor stand up an RI, then We/They would run RC1 against it
        • P2 - NFV Vendor
      • Make these into requirements
        • Secure lab participation/capacity/diversity for initial Field Trials #1101
        • Define MVP support model / structure for trials #1102 (move into 1100)
          • How to help standing up with cookbook etc.
        • Confirm trial participants and SPOCs #1103
        • Define trial expectations, what's needed, roles & responsibilities  #1104
          • Types of resources needed to pull this off.
          • Overall project management
          • Vendor contacts
          • SME for RC1
          • SME for RI1
          • RC1 running against RI1 is what is needed from OPNFV - need OPNFV lead
        • Trial Kickoff Meetings #110
          • Project plan with major milestones
          • Detail on what is expected (Nick can assist in ensuring expectations are met)
            • R1 stoop up in community lab, run RC1 against (what made sense? what didn't make sense? did the conformance suite work to test it?) kinda like a smoke test on CNTT community infra
            • RI1 stood up in Vendor lab, run RC1 against their own infra and give feedback (what made sense? what didn't make sense? did the conformance suite work to test it?)
            • VNF Vendor could come a try to stand up against both
        • Key Concern: Vendors concerned about optics. Needs to be a partnership with community to ensure what happens to results, who will have access to results, etc. Publishing rights. Etc. Provide a badge, so community would publish who owned the badge but not show necessarily what was passed. E.g. 85% passed = allotment of badge but not show results to all. 
      • Need to validate RI and RC suite makes sense.
      • Action - Need to clarify with vendors what we will share and what won't be shared as they are concerned about sharing the results.
        • They could run RC1 themselves and give us feedback on their results.
        • When results announced "Successfully implemented on RI, RC test passed, we used XYZ vendor, and passed it.
      • OPNFV current badge link: https://nfvi-verified.lfnetworking.org/#/

...