Attendees:

• Riccardo Gasparetto (Vodafone)
• Gergely Csatari (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 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
  • 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