Page Comparison

Table of Contentstoc

No recording this week - no host privilege on Phil's bridge 

Attendees: 

Community: Atul Purohit Saad Ullah Sheikh David Perez CaparrosguochuyiRyan HallahanBeth Cohen Ahmed El Sawaf   Olivier Augizeau Vincent Colas Herbert Damker Guy Meador Vincent Colas

Guests:  cl664y@att.com

LFN: David McBride Jim Baker

Survey results: Compliance and Verification Program Survey and OVP beta program

•  Heather Kirksey

• Review the survey results

• VNF implementation, compliance testing, NFVI /VIM compliance tope responses
  •  Heather Kirksey need confirmation on the algorithms  - used surveymonkey stack ranking type]
  •  Heather Kirksey  look into providing the information as a list.
• 66% of responses said they were planning to use both HEAT and TOSCA templates
  • Beth Cohen believes that within a company different BUs may be using different models based upon history
  • Herbert Damker  feels "HEAT is the language of today" and TOSCA will be the language of the future. Openstack is in use and currently uses Heat.
  • Q: is ONAP in production anywhere? A: Ryan Hallahan Yes, ONAP in production

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 Use cases / functional requirements for the next release (R5, El Alto) David Perez Caparros

• 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
  • https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Release+5+%28El+Alto+%29proposed+use+cases+and+functional+requirements
  • https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/SP+priorities+for+Dublin
• 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.
  
  • See unconference about the ONAP El Alto release hosted by cl664y@att.com

•  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
• Former user (Deleted) 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"

EUAG Working Group proposal - Atul Purohit

Summary: Review of the current EUAG process and suggestions for a path forward to create more focus and relevance for the EUAG based on the voice of the carriers with a focus on the ONAP/OPNFV

How does the common NFVi task force interact with this? David McBride

• Larger scope - includes ONAP and OPNFV

Common NFVi task force is outside the standards bodies? Herbert Damker

• Not just AT&T - includes Verizon et.al.
• OVP focused on VNF packages

How operators will combine to define a common NFVi remains to be seen - future focus Ryan Hallahan

Vendor strategy - will there be a clear deliverable? Is this lock in to a single set of components? Saad Ullah Sheikh

What does "vendor strategy" mean? Guy Meador

• what do we want from our vendors to help with the design?
• there are vendors that do not contribute to ONAP - use carrier alignment to drive vendor engagement
• Carriers articulate their consumption model - and set that as an expectation for the vendors (set of tests? expected capabilities?)

Be cautious of the ground rules of anti-competitive behaviours Guy Meador

• bias towards technical requirements NOT vender strategy

We're a set of carriers, find areas of commonality and use that to communicate more clearly to out vendors Ryan Hallahan

A set of action items are embedded in the slides Atul Purohit

El Alto release process proposal - Catherine Lefevre

Summary: The El Alto release could be shortened and focus on internal (tech) debt and defect backlogs. A proposed release cycle is presented.

Next steps: Reviewing at the ONAP TSC call 2019-04-11

Some e2e use cases are useful but too specific - would like to build our own use cases - would like more "ala carte" use cases (modularity) - is this a possible component of El Alto?  Olivier Augizeau

• Yes, this is exactly the type of info that the EUAG should be providing - please continue to provide this type of feedback.

Chat log

09:00:08 From Guy Meador (Cox) : Sorry that I joined late today. Here is a perspective on the EUAG “Proposed Re-Boot” topic. If we in the EUAG have members who desire to create and support the activities outlined for a sub-working group focused on “ONAP/OPNFV”, that is a good sub-team to create as a part of the LFN EUAG; doing so would not require a re-chartering of LFN EUAG; would prefer not re-chartering LFN EUAG
09:02:43 From Guy Meador (Cox) : Re: “EUAG Re-Chartering”: to be clear, and in summary, I would support the creation of a sub-team/activity of “ONAP/OPNFV EUAG Working Group” but not re-chartering of LFN EUAG. Having the sub-group would be of value to the ONAP/OPNFV community and allow the operator community to engage at a more tactical level with ONAP/OPNFV.
09:03:05 From Guy Meador (Cox) : ONAP “tic-to” releases makes sense to me
09:03:08 From Atul Purohit (Vodafone) : That is the idea, not to re-chart LFN EUAG, but within the confines of current - start a reboot to make it more meaningful. Thanks Guy
09:03:14 From Guy Meador (Cox) : “Tic-Toc”