Meeting Minutes
Jan 4th, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- LFN Developer event CNF sessions
- 4 Presentations
- Need to follow up with Byung
- Add the landing page as reference for any presentation
- Need to contact Kanagaraj about
- VTP - VNFSDK - OVP 2.0 CNF support in ONAP - Developer Wiki - Confluence - latest updates/roadmap, etc
- Anuket Assured - ONAP CNF Compliance Badge - Developer Wiki - Confluence
- Need to contact Anuket to understand the expectations
- 4 Presentations
- New landing page - should we publish? New Landing Page
- Follow-up with Chaker about the Architecture Diagram(s)
- Action for all to review/contribute to the landing page
- Add agenda, recording links, etc.
- ONAP for Enterprise
- Integration with Magma (Service Delivery) - v1.6 – Byung-Woo Jun + Yogendra Pal
- Identify KPIs/Metrics that we can consume from Magma (Service Assurance)
- Explore SABRES Integration (Secured Network Slices)
- Need to follow-up with yolendra about 2022-01-13 - EMCO: Orchestration of Magma - LF Networking - LF Networking Confluence vs ONAP Enterprise ONAP/Magma architecture + Meeting 12-14-21 - 5G SBP - LF Networking - LF Networking Confluence
- AOB?
- Next meeting on 1/18
Jan 18th, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- LFN DDF sessions - Any feedback?
- Major accomplishment: Modeling Subcommittee has accepted the definition/specifications related to ASD
- Network Service modeling/ASD - https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Application+Service+Descriptor+%28ASD%29+onboarding+IM
Byung-Woo Jun is driving a POC to determine a reference implementation (onboarding, orchestration), to be re-used in O-RAN - Jakarta/Kohn releases - Wiki Use Cases - Onboarding: Application Package Onboarding to SDC, Orchestration: ASD-Based CNF Orchestration PoC, Distribution: Application Package Distribution
- Network Service modeling/ASD - https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Application+Service+Descriptor+%28ASD%29+onboarding+IM
- Great tutorial: 2022-01-11 - ONAP: CNF Orchestration Tutorial
- EMCO/Magma integration
- To be considered as a Bonus – independent initiative, not correlated to 5G Super Blueprint activity. No change in direction for the 5G Super Blueprint i.e., Magma integration with ONAP will continue as previously discussed
- See notes, recording from the latest Enterprise Task Force meeting
- Anuket: Anuket Assured - How can we deliver on the Anuket Value Proposition for Cloud Infrastructure and Cloud Native Workloads? Additional discussions between Anuket/EMCO/ONAP will be scheduled
- Major accomplishment: Modeling Subcommittee has accepted the definition/specifications related to ASD
- ONAP/EMCO Integration: Orchestrate at CNF level - Deploy the CNF on container (k8S). ONAP could stay at service level. We need to understand deeper prior changing our ONAP CNF Strategy/Implementation
- Finalise the New Landing Page - Ready to be published
Jan 25th, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- New landing page content is live! Please take a quick look and verify everything is correct (TSC Task Force - Cloud Native)
- Chaker Al-Hakim
Sharing suggestions for the CNF landing Page (E2E flows, HL diagrams) - user-67d6f Latest updates/roadmap about
- VTP - VNFSDK - OVP 2.0 CNF support in ONAP
- VTP was introduced into VNFSDK to support CVC testing
- For CNF, the first goal is compliance support.
- VTP is integrated with SDC. SDC can call VTP before on-boarding.
- VTP Ask: What is the ONAP CNF modeling and packaging format? There are two formats - Simplified K8S Resource Model - IM , Application Service Descriptor (ASD) Resource Data Model
- SDC is adding CNF on-boarding. How do they plan to support validation for CNFs. Byung-Woo Jun will follow up with the SDC project.
- Seshu Kumar Mudiganti - Clarification - VTP can currently handle CNF validation, based on the Helm approach, pre-ASD.
- The VTP project will need collaboration from the ASD leaders in order to add support for that format. Byung-Woo Jun and Marian Darula will follow-up. Probably after the ASD PoC in Jakarta is complete.
- There is a need for additional test cases for CNFs.
- Anuket Assured - ONAP CNF Compliance Badge
- Information will be updated once there is progress on the topic above.
- VTP - VNFSDK - OVP 2.0 CNF support in ONAP
Feb 1st, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- Chaker Al-Hakim Sharing suggestions for the CNF landing Page (E2E flows, HL diagrams)
- Do we want to move the comments from the landing page to 2020 MoM etc?
Feb 8th, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- Update on ASD
- Result from [onap-modelingsub] Email Poll on ASD Information Model andPackaging Format Marian Darula , @Thinh Nguyenphu
- Huawei is objecting the ASD concept on grounds that it is not aligned with ETSI-NFV
- During the poll there were no merit based objections. The only objection was the procedural one above.
- ASD is seeing support in the O-RAN community. Thinh Nguyenphu: Dropping ASD in ONAP might hurt it and put it behind other projects.
- Marian Darula - There is a need to escalate the issue and reach a decision.
- What could be the alternative? -
- Fernando Oliveira : The ETSI proposal is capable and satisfactory, providing the necessary functionality without significant complexity.
- Byung-Woo Jun : There was an attempt to align with ETSI. There were some challenges converting policies to VF module. The conclusion was this attempt did not work well.
- Marian Darula : There is a challenge synchronizing content between Helm chart and VNFD. That was the main concern by Ericsson that drove to the development of the ASD.
- Thinh Nguyenphu : Another motivation for ASD was parametrization, and the desire to use cloud-native approach to that.
- Can there (and should there) be one solution for packaging? Marian Darula - It was clear from day-1 of the ASD effort that there might be more than one approach. There was never an attempt to make ASD the only winning solution.
- Marian Darula , Thinh Nguyenphu : If ONAP does not adopt ASD, the development effort might move to another community, leaving ONAP "behind".
- Huawei is not objecting continuing the ASD PoC.
- Kenny Paul : The modeling subcommittee can make recommendations to the TSC, but ultimately it is a TSC decision.
- POC definition Approved PoC policy since the Dublin release. A subcommittee cannot block a PoC,. All that is required is that the PoC needs to be reviewed with the committee.
- Ranny Haiby : Any request to the TSC should be clear about keeping both approaches alive, and let them be developed in parallel, as alternatives.
- Next step: Bring this to the TSC to decide the future of the ASD PoC.
- Timo Perala notes that
-
REQ-993Getting issue details...
STATUS
is listed in Jakarta Release Requirements
- note: this requirement covers ASD IM/DM. The ASD onboarding, distribution and LCM orchestration plans to be handled as a PoC during Jakarta. - Byung
- Network Service modeling/ASD - Latest Updates - Byung-Woo Jun , Fernando Oliveira
- Result from [onap-modelingsub] Email Poll on ASD Information Model andPackaging Format Marian Darula , @Thinh Nguyenphu
Feb 15th, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- Clarify the benefits of ASD over the ETSI-NFV SOL001
- There was a meeting on feb-14th on the modeling subcommittee - no consensus reached - Modeling Subcommittee 2022-02-14
- Decision was to escalate the decision to the TSC. The request from the TSC is to enforce adherence to the modeling subcommittee procedure. Andy Mayer - CLEAN state is a result of a subcommittee decision, based on rough consensus. The poll is just an input to the rough consensus. Xu Yang - "rough consensus" means there are no un-addressed objections. Marian Darula - the objection cannot technically be resolved.
- Xu Yang - Based on input from ETSI experts, it may be possible to unify the models.
- Zu Qiang (Ericsson) - Why is there an attempt to create a single model/package? Xu Yang - There is no such limitation to have one model. The ASD model is referencing ETSI models. Therefore it seems that it should be possible to find a unified model. For example, the ASD may become part of the ETSI-NFV NSD. Thinh Nguyenphu - ASD is not "built around" ETSI models. It may reference ETSI, just like it may reference any other SDO. It may be a good idea to aspire for more alignment, but it is inappropriate to block progress on the ASD initiative. Requests to follow the letter of the governing document (Approved ONAP Model Governance), and decide based on the poll.
- Byung-Woo Jun - The ASD PoC is NOT using elements from ETSI (e.g., SOL005, SOL003, NFVO, VNFM), so it cannot reconcile, as it will require major changes in the ETSI specifications. The "ONAP Native" orchestration approach is planning to adopt ASD, and is also not using ETSI specs. Why not use the same approach for the ASD and allow it to exist as an alternative? Xu Yang - The ONAP Native approach was approved because there was no reference to ETSI and it seemed like a stand alone approach.
- Xu Yang - Expectation from the TSC - Decide whether the current ASD proposal is technically mature enough, or does it need more work for reconciliation with ETSI?
- Timo Perala - Is there an estimated expected time line for the potential ETSI NFV - ASD aligned solution? For all I know it may easily take until 2023 to get there.
- Catherine Lefevre - What if ETSI endorses the ASD? Byung-Woo Jun - It will require major changes in the ETSI MANO architecture, may take time as stated above.
- Xu Yang The ASD IM does make references to ETSI. There are references to Virtual Links for example.
- Zu Qiang (Ericsson) - ASD Information model does not make a reference to ETSI. It may use identical attribute names, but that can be changed to avoid confusion.
- Thinh Nguyenphu - TF (Catherine), ONAP MODCOM (Xu), ONAP-NFV Contact (Thinh) Bridge info: TBD Document depository: TBD (my recommendation is CNF TF wiki page) Tentative Agenda (information sharing and no decision making):
- - Brief update from ETSI-NFV project (5 minutes) Fernando Oliveira Byung-Woo Jun , ONAP-ETSI-Alignment-Status-v7.pptx
- - Brief overview of CNF Direct project (5 minutes) Seshu Kumar Mudiganti and Lukasz Rajewski
- - Detail on ASD concept, IM/DM and packaging. (30 minutes)
- -
any update from ETSI NFV on CNF, since last update from LFN Developer 2022. (TBD) - - Q&A (20 minutes)
- - AoB
- Proposed date Feb-21st (President's day in the US) - Feb-28th may work better. Or Feb-22nd, during the timesloh of the CNF Taskforce meeting.
- Space for collaboration is under the ONAP CNF Taskforce - CNF Taskforce ↔ ETSI collaboration
- Prepare for Joint workshop with ETSI-NFV regarding ASD
Feb 22nd, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- Replaced by CNF Taskforce ↔ ETSI collaboration
Mar 1st, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- Prepare for LFN CNF workshop on Mar 13/14 - https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/2022+LFN+DTF+Workshop+Topics
- Catherine Lefevre will work with EMCO (Bob Monkman) to prepare an integration proposal. Lukasz RajewskiRanny Haiby will take part in the discussion
The goal is to have a clear roles and responsibilities definition for cases like the 5G super blueprint
- ASD Model approval - Can we come up with a compromise proposal that will put everyone's mind at ease?
- Focus on the technical aspects, not the procedural and vision aspects .
- Keep the momentum going and avoid future re-work.
- Path to move forward:
- Work on 'definition" problem raised by Fernando Oliveira , Zu Qiang (Ericsson) , Marian Darula + Thinh Nguyenphu
- Position ASD Model as an alternative to current ETSI Standard proposal to move forward with "Cloud Native Architecture"
- ASD implemented as plug & play (you choose onboarding ASD / ETSI / others)
- Known Impacts: SO e.g. CNF O (particular Camunda) + SDC /AAI (to be determined by POC work) + particular VES Collector - Byung-Woo Jun to review this part
- Work with the Modeling Team Catherine Lefevre
- Continue to share to ETSI what we do Thin, Byung-Woo Jun - increase visibility
Mar 8th, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- Follow up on ASD Model Action Items
- Work on 'definition" problem raised by Fernando Oliveira , Zu Qiang (Ericsson) , Marian Darula + Thinh Nguyenphu.
- Presentation by Marian Darula - <please upload deck here>
- Reviewed the difference in approach between ASD and ETSI - ASD adds a "slim" descriptor that only fills the gaps of the Helm charts. The ETSI approach creates a full SOL001 IFA11 descriptors with the full set of attributes. The ETSI approach may lead to duplication of information and two separate entities trying to control the lifecycle of the CNF (orchestrator and K8S)
- The ASD approach is using the IM of K8S/Helm
- Fernando Oliveira - Contention point is about the variation between IM and implementation. The old ECOMP model or ETSI model is satisfactory, there is no need for a new IM.
- Zu Qiang (Ericsson) - Explains the xNF modeling with ASD
- shitao li - There is no real duplication with the ETSI approach - Many of the attributes are optional. The comparison of LCM approaches may not be accurate
- Thinh Nguyenphu - In reality, it is not possible to use IFA11 to model a CNF. Ericsson tried that in the last two releases and proved it cannot be done. ONAP does not have a general CNF IM. The ASD goal is to simplify the onboarding of CNFs, removing the need for VNFM
- Thinh Nguyenphu - Proposes to respond to Fernando Oliveira 's comments
- Chuyi Guo - It sounds like there is a need to continue the technical aspects in the modeling subcommittee. Proposes to use the upcoming meeting for this technical discussion.
- Thinh Nguyenphu , Marian Darula - What is the point of continued discussion?
- Catherine Lefevre - We need to move forward with implementation. Let's treat the ASD IM as v1, and work towards a v2 that will address the concerns of the modeling subcommittee.
- AI - Marian Darula - upload the existing ASD model as a v1
- AI - Catherine Lefevre - Will follow up in the TSC.
- Work on 'definition" problem raised by Fernando Oliveira , Zu Qiang (Ericsson) , Marian Darula + Thinh Nguyenphu.
- Presentation ONAP/EMCO Alignment prior LFN DDF
- No meeting on Mar 15th - replaced by LFN CNF workshop
Mar 22nd, 2022 at 2pm UTC
- Feedback from the LFN DTF Event:
- CNFs
- EMCO/ONAP Alignment
- There are clearly two profiles. Not clear how to make progress on both
- Issue with profile #2 - How to use the policy functionality of ONAP, without the inventory components.
- Seshu Kumar Mudiganti - We should go to the next level of details on the integration points between ONAP and EMCO - We need a simple use case.
- What use case should we start with? We should find a use case that demonstrates the value of the integrated solution. It should showcases functionality that is not available with ONAP-only or EMCO-only.
- Seshu Kumar Mudiganti - Who is responsible to turn the wishlists to implementation? Who will take responsibility?
- Lukasz Rajewski - What is the right motivation for profile #2? Is it to make the solution lightweight? Is it to address edge use cases?
- Vishal Sharma - Initial use case UDC on a single cluster or multiple clusters. Might be on-prem (OpenShift) cloud or public cloud. Lukasz Rajewski - Deployment on public cloud might require EMCO, as it is not currently supported by ONAP. Seshu Kumar Mudiganti - No guarantee upfront that the UDC will work out of the box. Experience shows it might require some tweaking. Seshu Kumar Mudiganti - Suggests to start with ONAP-only, then identify gaps where EMCO may be useful.
- Vishal Sharma - Slicing scenarios might require multiple clouds, which calls for EMCO. Lukasz Rajewski If 3GPP slice API are required, they are not provided by EMCO. ONAP does provide this API.
- Vishal Sharma - Mentioned the AMCOP solution from Aarna Networks, that uses EMCO API for 5G Core deployment, and ONAP CDS for Day-1/2 configuration.
- Vishal Sharma - How can ASD be used today? Especially when ETSI is still working on specifications? Marian Darula - There is documentation and on-going PoC. Byung-Woo Jun is the main contact person for more information. On-boarding and deployment are expected to be completed in the Jakarta time frame. PoC wiki space - ASD-Based CNF Orchestration PoC
- Vishal Sharma - Will provide future updates on his progress using the CNF Taskforce mailing list, wiki, or meeting.
- Next Steps
- Requirements workgroup signup page - https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/Requirements+and+Use+Case+Advisory+Group
- We need to convey the message of choosing pragmatic use cases, and have people willing to back them up with implementation.
- Decision on new meeting time
- Starting next week the meeting will be at 13:00 UTC
- Are we good with ASD Information model? What are the next steps?
- No immediate blockers.
- @thinh - There is a planned workshop with ETSI today. At the moment there is no plan for further workshops
Mar 29th, 2022 at 1pm UTC (← New time!)
- ASD PoC Status update - Byung-Woo Jun
- SO and SDC teams from Ericsson are working on the PoC
- SDC team is working on the resource VF. working on TOSCA parser. Map ASD into VF, Wrap in CSAR and distribute.
- SO team working on LCM swagger definition for northbound API. Waiting for creation of PoC branch. Focusing on calls from BPMN to CNFM.
- Lukasz Rajewski - Will the ASD LCM API be integrated with the rest of the LCM API?
- The PoC handles onboarding and instantiation with variables.
- Slide deck - Byung-Woo Jun , ASD-PoC-Status-20220329.pdf
- Vishal Sharma - ETSI is expected to come up with SOL003 specifications, is there work planned to support it? Byung-Woo Jun , Fernando Oliveira - There is definition work ongoing for the ETSI approach, but actual development has not yet started.
- Target for PoC - Initially was Jakarta, but now it is clear some functionality will slide into Kohn
Apr 5th, 2022 at 1pm UTC
- Updates from ETSI workshop - @Thinh
Action Item(s) (In Progress)
- (CNF Task Force): What do we need to ask to CNF Vendors to be onboarded on the ONAP Platform? These reqs could be shared with Anuket Assurance for the CNF badging
Action Item(s) (Closed in 2022)
- Byung-Woo Jun , Fernando Oliveira to present CNF activities to the TSC - TSC 2022-02-03