Attendees:

Please add your name in here:

• @Tom Kivlin

• @Pankaj.Goyal (AT&T)

• @Al Morton (AT&T)

• @Trevor Cooper (Intel)

• @Satish Verma (Spirent)

• @Gene Bagwell (Verizon)

• @Petar Torre (Deactivated) (Intel)

Agenda and Minutes:

• Antitrust notices

  • Linux Foundation Anti-Trust Policy Notice

  • GSMA Anti-Trust Policy Notice

• Walk-in items

  • Node labels for basic/network intensive profile scheduling: https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/issues/1762

    • Need to explain the concept of Kubernetes node labels

    • Consensus on second option

  • Well known taints etc.: https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/issues/1761

    • OK

  • OS version - should we close this? https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/issues/920

    • OK

  • Stale issues - propose we close if in To-do and no PR created after ?? days/weeks/months

    • No objections - @Tom Kivlinto create proposal

  • Review current status versus Baraque plan (change freeze starts 14th September):

    • Chatper02 - CNF requirements missing (@Olivier Smithto check offline)

    • Chapter03 - some sections still missing content (issues have been created to deal with these)

    • Chapter04 - relying on below PRs being completed

    • Chapter05 - relying on issues/1581 being assigned and a PR being created/merged

    • Chapter06 - OK

• Project review

  • Chapter 4 restructuring

    • https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/blob/master/doc/ref_arch/kubernetes/chapters/chapter04.md

    • 4.2 Container Host - issues/1634 - @Tom Kivlin

      • pull/1805 - In review, ready to merge

    • 4.3 Kubernetes - 1635 - @Tom Kivlin

      • pull/1805 - In review, ready to merge

    • 4.4 Container runtimes - issues/1636 - @Satish Verma

      • Presented a slide about the plan

      • The contribution will contain a set of runtimes and their parameters

    • 4.5 Networking solutions - issues/1637 - CLOSED

      • pull/1854 - MERGED

      • @Gergely Csatari (Nokia) still needs to address dabernie -s comments

      • @Former user (Deleted)  opened an issue to discuss if it is okay if the deployment artefacts are different on different cloud infrastructures

      • issue/1911 opened to deal with wording around DANM/Multus

    • 4.6 Storage components - issues/1638 - CLOSED

      • pull/1870 - MERGED

    • 4.9 Kubernetes workloads - issues/1853 - @Gergely Csatari (Nokia) , @Taylor Carpenter , @Riccardo Gasparetto Stori , @Olivier Smith

      • The chapter was originally empty

      • Ch2 level is handled in issues/1496

      • Do we need to move to backlog, or can someone create some content to review in time for 14th September PR merge deadline?

  • https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/projects/10

    • Please take the issue without assignee and self assign them

• AOB

  • Network specification - @Tom Kivlinproposal to replace table 4-5 with a diagram that shows the architecture, with an associated table showing which part of the architecture deals with each requirement.  e.g. I don't think it's relevant that the multiplexer has to provide Network Policies as existing CNI plugins that the multiplexer calls can (and perhaps should) deal with that.   (Do we need a "Unix" principle - "do one thing, well"?)

    • @Tom Kivlin to create an issue on the backlog

• Actions/Next steps

  • Frederick to present a quick NSM intro in one of the future meetings

Meeting Recording

Topic: CNTT RA2 Kubernetes Weekly Meeting
Start Time : Aug 27, 2020 07:57

Meeting Recording:
https://zoom.us/rec/share/utF7MLyo2FJJZKfwy0TvX5I-D93nT6a80CEX_qAPnkl5nQbt8toexDz7qeZzknzx