EUAG 2019-04-09 meeting minutes

Owned by Jim Baker
Last updated: Apr 09, 2019
2 min read

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

Attendees: 

Community: @Atul Purohit @Saad Ullah Sheikh @David Perez Caparros@guochuyi@Ryan Hallahan @Olivier Augizeau @Vincent Colas @Herbert Damker @Guy Meador

Guests:  @cl664y@att.com

LFN: @David McBride @Jim Baker



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”