Attendees:

• @Riccardo Gasparetto Stori (Vodafone)

• @Gergely Csatari (Nokia) (Nokia)

• @Pankaj.Goyal (AT&T)

• @Karine Sevilla (Orange)

• @Peter Woerndle (Ericsson)

• @kumar.suman(Samsung)

Agenda and Minutes:

• Antitrust notices

  • Linux Foundation Anti-Trust Policy Notice

  • GSMA Anti-Trust Policy Notice

• Walk-in items

  • RM 5.0 alignment - delta here

    • alignment with 3.8 - can be broken down into labeling (@Riccardo Gasparetto Stori 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 (Nokia): too much optionality in profile specs, gives too little assurance to users

    •  @Riccardo Gasparetto Stori 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

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

• Permanent FYI

  • CNF Working Group within CNCF - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YFimQftjkTUsxNGTsKdakvP7cJtJgCTqViH2kwJOrsc/edit 

    • This also incorporates the previous requirements gathering exercise

• Actions/Next steps

Meeting Recording