MMA Agenda and Minutes 17Mar2020

Owned by Bob Monkman (Deactivated)
Last updated: Mar 23, 2020
4 min read

Attendees

  • @Beth Cohen

  • @Nick Chase (Mirantis)

  • @speedwyre (AT&T)

  • @Scot Steele (AT&T)

  • @Brian Bearden (AT&T)

  • @Jonne Soininen (Nokia)

  • @Rabi Abdel (Vodafone)

  • @William DIEGO (Orange) (Orange)

  • @Toshi Wakayama (Toshi, KDDI)



Agenda



Agenda Bashing (5 minutes)

  • Meeting time is proposed to follow UTC as agreed with on other CNTT meetings. This meeting will occur weekly at 14:00 UTC which does mean 0700 PDT/0900 CDT/1000 EDT until April and then will be earlier in US by 1 hour as before DST.

Marketing Outreach Exec Interview Status (10 Minutes)

  • Team working on seeking interviews with Mirantis, Nokia, Ericsson, Vodafone, Telstra, Red Hat

    • Mirantis: @speedwyre and @Nick Chase held interview with Shaun O'Meara  last Thursday March 12.

    • Red Hat: Andrew McClachLan working on this internally still

    • Nokia: @Jonne Soininen will review and respond, Bob resent draft questions

    • Telstra: @Nick Chase talking to Walter/Joanna; Asked for and received the draft questions

    • Ericsson: @Bob Monkman (Deactivated) reached to Phil Robb, who asked for an received draft questions

  • Any missing active companies we should add to the list? VmWare, KDDI, ??

Marketing Event/Collateral Discussion (15 Minutes) 

  • White paper- Nick, Bob have confirmed an Intel contract writer resource can be allocated to draft CNTT - Still need to kick this off

  • ETSI PlugFest endorsement, Participation @Pierre Lynch [Keysight] has been seeking to get this off the ground. Progress is stalled in part due to doubt that people can plan to travel anytime soon and whether even will even occur as planned. 

Metrics

  • Pre-Launch Trials: sub-group needed to work on quantitative and qualitative assessment

  • We need to make progress on identifying Pre-launch Trials participants for NFVI and VNFs

  • Need some Questions to ask for feasibility or CNTT methods (e.g. cookbook) so the product of badging being offered is sufficiently supported by the industry “a lifecycle feedback loop” between CNTT and OPNFV to adopt RA1, RA2. A sub-group call will create questions @speedwyre working on this.

  • For Dev Analytics, we need to map IDs to Analytics site. @Scot Steele reaching out to @Jim Baker on this. 

  • LFN Dev Analytics site - starting basic mapping work (Multiple user IDs to LFN ID)

Recruiting

  • BT has joined and has been sent the new Welcome Letter. Has this letter been archived as an artifact for reuse?

  • Facebook/Magma

General

Still need to capture and track the MMA Action items better. Some of us do not need to create and populate new Issues for tracking.

GitHub(https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/projects/28).  Currently all action items are in Confluence tagged MMA. 

  • GitHub for Governance Training Session Recording: Tools and Training 

  • Quick Note: The LFN Developer & Testing Forum report with CNTT feature is now published here. Please read, share, and help promote. Open to feedback on format/branding for next time.



Meeting Notes

  • Meeting invite will be reconstituted to peg to UTC. Bob will also check to ensure that the wiki specifies UTC for these meetings.

  • @Bob Monkman (Deactivated) hasn't heard anything on Nokia or Red Hat

  • Mirantis is done.  Key takeaway is around the need to be able to differentiate vendor product within the conformance guidelines.  Not yet clear how to do that. How do vendors move upstream? Operational support, reacting to vulnerabilities, etc.  If the infrastructure vendors are seeing this as a threat, we should spell this out.

  • On the OPNFV 2.0 call, the topic of performance came up; conformance is importance, but if performance isn't acceptable, then it's all for naught.

  • But performance testing at this level is extremely variable.  There's a reason we dropped it from conformance testing.

  • We definitely don't want to bring in multiple clouds and do a bake-off, but we should do a performance test with the Reference Implementation and set that as the baseline against which vendors can differentiate.  But we need to make sure they don't bring in specific interfaces to increase performance, causing us to have to test again.

  • Let's triage the responses we have already and get the key takeaways.  We're probably not going to get anybody else.  Jonathan wants to get at least one more vendor, however, so we'll keep trying but we'll start working with what we've got.  @speedwyre @Bob Monkman (Deactivated)and @Nick Chasewill meet to review what we have (2 operators and a vendor). (Nokia is still pending.) Should include @Scot Steeleas well.

  • @Bob Monkman (Deactivated) will meet with @Nick Chase re: the whitepaper

  • ETSI plugfest likely in danger of not happening due to travel requirements. @Bob Monkman (Deactivated)will review the minutes, but it will likely be postponed.

  • Trial will likely not happen in April timeframe, but we are still getting nicely prepared for it; chapter 9 is going well.  @Bob Monkman (Deactivated)will review chapter 9 and send a note to potential participants to enable them to look at meat and details regarding the guidance CNTT is giving.

  • @speedwyre has been working on mapping contributors to work using new dev analytics system from LFN.  Unknowns 74% → 28%.  Tedious but continuous process. @Jim Baker working on bug fixes, we're beta testers. 

  • @Beth Cohen will archive BT welcome letter as an archive on the MMA wiki "artifacts" page (to be created). Existing material such as decks can still be added.

  • Github for Governance has bee updated with a new link for how to contribute and for nomenclature for labeling, projects, etc.

  • Facebooks/Magma LTE packet core will be using CNTT as their deployment guidelines.

  • @Rabi Abdel pointed out that it would be good to know which track vendors and suppliers are interested in.  Everybody's interested in the container track, but how do they feel about the VM track? At a high level, most operators are VN-based but moving towards container-based.  So should we focus just on containers, or should we continue to focus on VMs?  If we think that containers are where we're going, should we accelerate that?  We will always need a cloud platform to run on, unless we move to baremetal, which probably won't happen.  But perhaps we should redirect VNF conformance testing resources to CNF conformance testing?  It's hard to tell.  For example, Verizon hasn't yet made a decision on their directional intent.  The idea is to get in from the beginning and flush out technical issues with vendors to avoid the same mistakes that were made from the beginning with VMs.