Anuket Project

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 6 Current »

Attendees:

Agenda and Minutes:

  • Antitrust notices
  • Walk-in items
    • RM 5.0 alignment - delta here
      • alignment with 3.8 - can be broken down into labeling (Riccardo Gasparetto to create issue and track) and controller/APIs/interfaces (likely a number of gaps - another issue)
        • Not all controllers for accelerators may be in scope - do we need to specify the interface if the accelerator is not part of the infrastructure?
        • Likely overlap with RA1 - problem space is overlapping 
      • add issue to align with the whole RM security chapter
      • align with chapter 8 - track with issue - may need to change or relax (or add exceptions) to ch2 requirements - also need to track as flavours with labels
      • chapter 9 - discuss whether Cluster LCM should be part of the scope, and if so, how (eg should we constrain a solution or not, to what level should we specify its properties...)
        • PROS: useful for operators, provides guidance to reference implementation, may help direct vendors to existing standards
        • CONS: no immediate impact on workloads, may constrain 
    • https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/issues/2068 - do we need more profiles? RAN CaaS?
      • need to differentiate between Profiles and Flavours,
      • need to differentiate between workload profiles vs infrastructure/node profiles
      • Pankaj.Goyal : Operators are generally against proliferation of profiles
      • Profiles segment/partition the infrastructure: nodes belonging to different profiles are managed separately
      • Gergely Csatari: too much optionality in profile specs, gives too little assurance to users
      •  Riccardo Gasparetto Hierarchical profiles: flavours as sub-profiles? 
      • Pankaj.Goyal: need to maximise capacity - segmenting infrastructure with mono-dimensional profiles leads to waste of capacity when workloads are forced to choose a set partition to be allocated onto at runtime
      • need to rename the network-intensive profile to something else as it's misleading - eg basic vs advanced?
  • AOB & Project review
  • Permanent FYI
  • Actions/Next steps


Meeting Recording


  • No labels