The CNTT and OPNFV communities agree to follow the premises below and subscribe to the associated RACI chart for scope boundaries:
- CNTT defines specifications and provides only the specifications to OPNFV
- CNTT: Reference Model, Reference Architecture, Reference Implementation
- OPNFV: Reference Implementation, Reference Compliance
- OVP: Testing, Badging
- OPNFV performs builds from the Reference Implementation specifications.
- "Cookbook" artifacts are the domain of OPNFV, CNTT should participate in the management of the cookbooks, and selects teh Test cases to be executed.
- A release management method including feedback loops is needed between OPNFV and CNTT. LFN/OPNFV has an existing meeting in which some of CNTT community will participate.
- CNTT Participants that will participate include Scot Steele, etc
- Cross Community Collaboration must increase without overloading the participants.
- Recommendation: WS Leads should identify WS participants that can attend the other community TSC meetings
- Regularly held cross community meetings should be held. Community Chairs should schedule/delegate to community participants to implement/manage
General group agreement
- The RACI doc and other docs related to the organization are all living docs.
- Long term there will need to make a decision related to the final home for CNTT project work. – vincent.danno@orange.com
- We need to see how successful "1" arrangement is. → no need to rush in thinking about "2" and we still didn't figure out "1". I STRONGLY SUGGEST NOT TO RUSH INTO THIS WITHOUT FIGURE OUT "1" AND PROVE MODEL WORKS. Rabi Abdel
Questions need to be answered: Current Mode OPNFV/CNTT RACI Chart
- What happens when CNTT develop a requirement in, say, RI-1?
- do CNTT goes directly to prospective OPNFV project and get it implemented (via that project PTL).
- how are those implementation will link back to CNTT releases?
- Will each project has their own release cycle (with appropriate baggings) or will OPNFV has an overall release cadence ? how does the model work?
- or will CNTT has to follow some kind of process to get their requirements implemented?
- or will OPNFV itself regularly get CNTT releases and find the right OPNFV projects to implement any new requirements.
- via CIRV?
- what is the role of OPNFV TSC on all this? who is accountable for what?
- we need to talk about accountability and make it clear who is accountable for what!
- do CNTT goes directly to prospective OPNFV project and get it implemented (via that project PTL).
- How does OVP fit into this matrix?
- Given the GSMA process is it mostly a consumer and ratifier of the output from CNTT, or does it have a role in providing feedback? I.e. how can this be set up to be a two way street?
Scott Steinbrueck proposal 6/9/2020
The challenge is how to organize the content in an efficient way that reduces complexity for the authors/implementors to create, while also producing a quality product that is simple for the end user base to navigate, read and comprehend.
Seeking agreement to the following premises:
- RA-1 is the requirements and specs
- RI-1 is an example implementation (“example” word is used because no company is required to follow this exact lab setup / installer approach – it’s an example)
- RC-1 is a test conformance suite
Scott Steinbrueck proposal 6/12/2020