ZOOM Recording: GMT20180406-170638_Ramki-Kris_1920x1080.mp4

Meeting Notes:

1. Meeting time consensus - 8:00am PT. Ramki to reach out to OOF team to change the time of OOF meetings.
2. Cagatay reviewed Edge Scoping-r3.docx.
   
   • Discuss where is "Edge" and relevant applications for with a app response time context
   • Gil Bullard brought up relevance to ONAP context, i.e. ONAP services to external party vs ONAP Multi-VIM driven management/optimization. Federated ONAP operations may be relevant here.
     • The consensus is to discuss this after we agree on the use case scope.
   • Alexander Vul brought up the distinctions between user equipment vs customer premise equipment in mobile node like a car in the context where "Edge" might be.
     • The demarcation between network provider and end user is left up to service provider. In the case of a car example, the demarc is the Mobile SIM (4G/5G etc.).
   • ramki krishnan brought up architecture vs use case distinction in the Applications and time scales section.
     • The consensus was to move architecture details to a separate section.
   • ramki krishnan brought up need for additional examples other than RAN for item 2) "Near-real-time Apps" in the Applications and time scales section.
     • The consensus for the team to provide input.
   • Created child page Edge Scoping with some updated text.
     • Team to review and provide comments.

Agenda to be finalized 24 hrs. before each meeting.

Folks are requested to review the contributions and come prepared with questions.

ZOOM Recording: zoom_0.mp4

Meeting Notes:

1. Housekeeping
   1. Informed the team through email
   2. Target Dates:
      1. April 30th for Use Case sub committee update about functional requirements for Casablanca and beyond
      2. May 15th for Architecture sub committee update about any changes to the functional/reference architecture for Casablanca and beyond
2. Contributions:
   1. Distinction between Akraino and this work - question from Margaret Chiosi
      1. Akraino is an integration project using an opinionated edge stack based on certain open source components.
      2. This effort in ONAP would treat Akraino as another type of edge cloud and managed though ONAP Multi Cloud and other ONAP relevant components.
   2. Edge Scoping discussion
      
      1. Priorities for Casablanca – initial thoughts captured in the Edge Scoping wiki
      2. Need to differentiate between 3rd party and operator provided applications – differentiate along real-time and non-real-time and application characteristics – input from Vimal 
      3. MEC_Apps_ONS2018_Rev1.1.pdf was briefly mentioned by Vimal Begwani as an example of a 3rd party edge app (e.g. pothole fixer app) including relevant MEC APIs; Follow up action: Request Prakash Ramchandran to present work in one of the call.
   3. Edge_ONAP_WG_v4.pdf (updated deck) from Srinivasa Addepalli
      1. Edge Deployment/Functional Architecture diagram (slide nos. 7,8, 9) provide initial context for this work. (what diagram to add in Edge Scoping wiki?)
      2. For scalability, there was a discussion about child ONAP with a subset of ONAP components.
      3. Edge Requirements - initial thoughts in slides 4, 5 - Vimal Begwani, Cagatay Buyukkoc to review and expand.

1. Differentiate between 3rd party and operator provided applications  – input from Vimal Begwani
2. Differentiate along real-time and non-real-time and application characteristics – input from Vimal Begwani
3. Edge Requirements - input from Vimal Begwani & Cagatay Buyukkoc
4. Complete discussion Edge_ONAP_WG_v4.pdf for Edge Architecture - Srinivasa Addepalli

Zoom Recording: zoom_0.mp4

Meeting Notes:

What diagram to add in Edge Scoping wiki? - item 2.C.I from last session - see gliffy diagram in Edge Scoping page

1 and 2: Vimal provided review of table in Edge Scoping page for application classification.

3: updated gliffy diagram to reflect input from Vimal's diagram

4: Clarified demarcation between Cloud Provider and ONAP offload in slides. Also, suggested we use gliffy in wiki as one diagram to work on.

Review updated Gliffy Arch diagram and Notes below gliffy (also, need to update gliffy with apps locations)

Review Infrastructure Profile descriptions from Srinivasa Addepalli and Vimal Begwani

TBD - Review of MEC_Apps_ONS2018_Rev1.1.pdf by Prakash Ramchandran

1) Reviewed gliffy, notes below gliffy, and, applications table

• Shekar Sundaramurthy: for minimum viable - could let it be decided at run time via OOF
• Yoav Kluger: 2 dimensions - (1) apps location based on requirements, and (2) onap functions closer to edge
  
  • Vimal Begwani: apps = think as VNFC
  • So, VNFC → IaaS requirements from cloud provider Business Unit
  • hence, one output of this work is to define additional IaaS from Cloud Provider for Edge deployment
    • Alexander Vul - need to model Service Components in a way to allow for internal and external domain resources for IaaS
    • Parviz Yegani - need to consider work as part of external api work...when API to external partners.
      
  • Also, second output: onap-edge workload functions needed

Yoav Kluger: why limit to 500ms/use case 1?

• Vimal Begwani: use case 2 relies on open CU-CP?
• Alexander Vul: need to consider this a multi-release project

Yoav Kluger - for e2e requirements, need to consider using policies vs service design

Parviz Yegani - for RT vs NRT: need tight coordination between domains?

• Vimal Begwani- SP determines choice of domain based on meeting various requirements

Arash Hekmat

• APIs imply going thru multi-cloud? (raghu clarified that the current multi-cloud work is to be the 'adapter' interface between onap components and rest of the world)
• Edge-to-Edge? (raghu clarified that currently the thinking is it is sufficient via central onap)
• DCAE hierarchy? (as vimal clarified, any cloud provider can be used to host onap components,...but, we didn't want to corrupt the diagram with too many repetitive details)

2) Srinivasa Addepalli reviewed Infrastructure Profiles in Edge Scoping page

• reviewed "large" profile as example
• ramki krishnan
  • OVS-dpdk? (srini clarified that profile example is specific to akraino.)
  • DVR for VM<>container networking? for same VNF? (srini clarified that either can be relevant)
• Parviz Yegani - networking by onap? (raghu clarified - yes, sdn-c is responsible for endpoints within domain for underlay, but openstack/k8 responsible for sr-iov/ovs aspects. Also, ramki clarified need for intra- vs inter- cloud configuration)
• Tom Tofigh - UPF (5G) for forwarding pipeline. But, we don't have SSD or memory fabric to support certain services for UE. Tom gave example of 1 RU of ssd, 1RU of GPU, 1 RU of RAM, etc...and, the edge node is composed for use by UE. So, as example, ephemeral vs long lived storage, etc. offered as part of service using the edge compute node.
• Vimal Begwani - need to keep requirements general (vs akraino specific?)...so, different implementations can support it.

3) Cagatay Buyukkoc briefly reviewed Edge Automationissues.pptx - need to discuss more