EUAG 2019-04-23 meeting minutes
- Jim Baker
- Kenny Paul
Attendees
Members: @Atul Purohit @David Perez Caparros @Rabi Abdel @Ryan Hallahan @FREEMAN, BRIAN D @Guy Meador @Marc-Alexandre Choquette
Guests: @cl664y@att.com @Saad Ullah Sheikh @Lincoln Lavoie @LIN MENG @ramesh, @Shiby Parayil @Trevor Cooper @Vincent Scharf
LF staff: @Jim Baker @Former user (Deleted) @Heather Kirksey @Kenny Paul @Alan Blackburn
EUAG Working Group proposal 2
@Atul Purohit
None of the current attendees were a part of the original formation of the EUAG!
Objective: Create more valuable engagement by focusing on important projects: ONAP (initially)
Focus areas:
Carrier priorities for ONAP
get a catalog of service provider priorities
State of play
PoC examples and Production examples
Cross-carrier initiatives
Distribution strategy
MVP approach/platform maturity plan
Atul reviewed a set of "homework" for each of the CSPs to get more insight to the interests and actions of each of the CSPs
CSPs are to complete the 3 worksheets for review by 2019-05-07
We'll review the CSP inputs in the next EUAG meeting
At the 2019-05-21 meeting, we'll review the normalized view
OVP value proposition/MVP review
@Heather Kirksey @Lincoln Lavoie
Heather presented the concept of a Minimum Valuable Product proposal
Asking for feedback on the assumptions and priorities of the MVP
Lincoln reviewed the progress to date on the OVP
We have basic "compliance" testing today
Next step is VNF "validation" testing - sitting atop a NFVI w/ONAP
?Is this a set of requirements?
Not proposing the requirements - that is up to ONAP VNFRQMTs
Rather looking for validation from the CSPs on the testing activities
Considerable discussion on the nature of the NFVI used for testing
Lifecycle management
Instead of looking at the full range of LCM - focus on day0 (on-boarding & instantiation) activities
?Does this provide value for the CSPs in the Rel E timeframe?
@FREEMAN, BRIAN D Yes - it is a step along a progression
@Saad Ullah Sheikh Useful but not sufficient
@Guy Meador Not the NFVI nor is it ONAP MVP - it's only focused on the NFV
Looking to finalize by end of April - will provide a final recap of the MVP by next meeting
Chat Log
07:30:44 From Catherine Lefevre : i can not speak - here is catherine
07:30:59 From Catherine Lefevre : 32475 77 36 73
07:32:30 From Catherine Lefevre : thanks I will disconnect since i was only attending to the first part as ONAP TSC :-)
07:32:36 From Catherine Lefevre : have a nice day
07:42:07 From Brian : onap doesnt provide a Openstack - wording issue
07:43:27 From Heather Kirksey : Brian, we were under the impression that ONAP does ship w/ a vanilla OpenStack. If that's not the case, that's a great point to bring up. Thx
07:44:54 From Marc-Alexandre Choquette (Bell Canada) : you could swap ‘provided’ by ‘supported’.
07:45:51 From Brian : 'supported' would be much better
07:46:13 From SAAD SHEIKH <STC> : Do we have a plan to output some specifications that can support us during RFP bcz from OPNFV OVP also we find challenge for this point
07:51:15 From LinMeng : how does the requirements& deliverables designed? why the test only focus on HEAT based VNFs?
07:53:58 From Lincoln Lavoie (UNH-IOL) : @LinMeng, the focus on HEAT is largely based on the relationship to the timing. TOSCA would likely require additional work on requirements and test tooling. So, the value question is, Does HEAT in the E-release timing create the first level of value, or does it need to include TOSCA and push the timing out to create the value
07:55:43 From LinMeng : thanks
07:56:45 From Heather Kirksey : And LinMeng, that is one of the questions we wanted to ask all of you here?
08:03:04 From Lincoln Lavoie (UNH-IOL) : VNF Validation Minimum Viable Product
08:03:32 From LinMeng : I will confirm and provide the feedback . I think we have the requirements for the testing of TOSCA based VNFs