2020-03-03 [CNTT - GSC] - Agenda & Meeting Minutes

Owned by Scot Steele
Last updated: Mar 03, 2020 by Toshi Wakayama
3 min read

Materials:

  •  

Attendees:

  • @Scot Steele (AT&T)

  • @Rick Tennant (AT&T)

  • @Jim Baker  (LF)

  • @Walter.kozlowski (Telstra)

  • @Rabi Abdel (Vodafone)

  • @Beth Cohen(Verizon)

  • @Nick Chase (Mirantis)

  • @Phil Robb (Ericsson)

  • @Ulrich Kleber (Huawei)

  • @William DIEGO (Orange) (Orange)

  • @Bob Monkman (Deactivated) (Intel)

  • @Qiao Fu (China Mobile)

  • @Zhiqiang Yu (China Mobile)

  • @Jonne Soininen (Nokia)

  • @speedwyre (AT&T)

  • @Toshi Wakayama (KDDI)

Topics:

Notes:

  • CNTT LA F2F needs to happen even if virtual.

  • Baldy Action Items

    • 1101, 1103 – not progressing as hoped, interdependent

    • We have Intel already for RC1.

    • RedHat is reviewing

    • Need to identify company to do trials first

    • If we sign up RedHat, then do they want to do it in their lab, if not then who can we get?

    • Review of Lab Types

      • Intel (Community)

      • Self-Lab (Run RC against self-hosted lab)

      • LaaS (UNH) “paid” service

    • Priority is to find companies to do a trial.

    • @Rabi Abdel trying to get VMWare to participate. Awaiting feedback.

    • Action Item: @Scot Steele to reassign all items appropriately

  • Action Item - Field Trial Approach Doc Edits - @Scot Steele

    • 9.5.3.1 #2 Add “Not to badge NFVI vendor Implementations”

    • Use term ‘VI’ instead of NFVI

    • “When something fails a test, what is the arbitration process for system under test being wrong, or test being wrong?” – @Former user (Deleted)

      • Need to clearer about the process here.

      • Talk more about how trial participant would interact with the community.

    • Each trial participant gets a SPOC.

      • SPOC will work with participant to identify what is wrong with the spec. Then assign it to appropriate work stream.

      • E.g. Was the test suite actually runnable?

      • Focus on validating the test suite. (Not pass/fail of TCs).

      • Run on a variety of NFVIs.

      • If things don’t pass, is there a simple agreement because the NFVI was deficient in some way (local analysis). Not trying to address the veracity of the system under test?

    • Anonymize (i.e. ''reverse' blind testing/assessment) the results:

      • Here’s situation.

      • Here’s the result.

      • “Keep a level of anonymity.”

    • Repositories: CNTT SPOC needs to be identified to take the feedback and where it should land: CNTT repository or OPNFV bug (then OPNFV)

      • Make sure language throughout says: NFVI participant will work with the SPOC/ Community member, and vendor - not entire community.

      • E.g. 9.5.6.1

        • “Community shall review” becomes “CNTT SPOC shall review”

        • “Overall CNTT Decision making leads” need revise that issues will be take issues to TSC/GSC.

      • Overall Trial Project Manager / Lead responsible for Field Trials – is who ?? – looking over entire trials process (cat herder)

    • Add: one person assigned to vendor as SPOC “CNTT SPOC

    • Developing Test Criteria: RC-1 has all this specified. RI/RC work stream is weekly at seven central. Existing effort to review results. Remove sections detailing test criteria from Doc. Point to RC doc—get @Michael Fix to help here.

  • Action Item: @Scot Steele to schedule sub-group calls to develop approach.

Appendix:



Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/5960599463

Meeting ID: 596 059 9463

One tap mobile
+16699006833,,5960599463# US (San Jose)
+16465588656,,5960599463# US (New York)

Dial by your location
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
        877 369 0926 US Toll-free
        855 880 1246 US Toll-free
        +1 647 558 0588 Canada
        855 703 8985 Canada Toll-free
Meeting ID: 596 059 9463
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/adGixjRMnj