Page Comparison

Date

25 Jan 2018

Duration 90 minutes

...

Date

25 Jan 2018

Recording

IRC minutes

Full IRC Log  

Zoom Chat Log

Action items

Full IRC Log 

Anchor
irc irc

13:53:55 <kennypaul> #startmeeting tsc 2018-01-25
13:53:55 <collabot> Meeting started Thu Jan 25 13:53:55 2018 UTC.  The chair is kennypaul. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
13:53:55 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
13:53:55 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'tsc_2018_01_25'
13:54:13 <kennypaul> #chair phrobb
13:54:13 <collabot> Current chairs: kennypaul phrobb
13:54:31 <kennypaul> #topic rollcall
13:59:25 <kennypaul> #info Alla Goldner, AMDOCS
13:59:30 <JasonHunt> #info Jason Hunt, IBM
14:01:18 <gilbert> #info mazin gilbert
14:01:19 <alexvul> #info proxy for Rajesh Gadiyar (Intel)
14:01:26 <amir_levy> #info Amir Levy, Cloudify
14:01:47 <cdonley> #info Chris Donley Huawei
14:02:18 <xinhuili> #info Xinhui Li, VMware
14:02:21 <RannyHaiby> #info Ranny Haiby, Nokia
14:03:39 <DhananjayPavgi> #Info Dhananjay Pavgi, Tech Mahindra
14:03:46 <gilesheron> #info proxy Giles Heron, Cisco
14:04:40 <davidsauvageau> #info David Sauvageau, Bell Canada
14:05:15 <kennypaul> #info Chengli proxy for Lingli, CMCC
14:05:55 <SteveT> #info Stephen Terrill, Ericsson
14:07:03 <jamil> #infor jamil for Orange
14:07:05 <susana> #info Susana Sabater Vodafone
14:07:15 <kennypaul> #topic infrastructure coordinator proposal
14:07:20 <Zhaoxing> #info Zhaoxing Meng, ZTE
14:24:47 <kennypaul> #startvote does the TSC approve the Infrastructure Coordinator proposal as presented on slide 6 of the TSC meeting slide deck? +1, 0, -1
14:24:47 <collabot> Begin voting on: does the TSC approve the Infrastructure Coordinator proposal as presented on slide 6 of the TSC meeting slide deck? Valid vote options are +1, 0, -1.
14:24:47 <collabot> Vote using '#vote OPTION'. Only your last vote counts.
14:24:53 <gilbert> #vote +1
14:24:54 <cdonley> #vote +1
14:24:54 <amir_levy> #vote +1
14:24:55 <JasonHunt> #vote +1
14:24:56 <SteveT> +1
14:24:58 <RannyHaiby> #vote +1
14:24:59 <alexvul> #vote +1
14:25:01 <gilesheron> #vote +1
14:25:02 <SteveT> #vote +1
14:25:04 <Xiaojun> #vote +1
14:25:06 <davidsauvageau> #vote +1
14:25:15 <jamil> #vote +1
14:25:21 <ningso> #vote +1
14:25:22 <xinhuili> #vote +1
14:25:34 <Zhaoxing> #vote +1
14:25:46 <kennypaul> #endvote
14:25:46 <collabot> Voted on "does the TSC approve the Infrastructure Coordinator proposal as presented on slide 6 of the TSC meeting slide deck?" Results are
14:25:46 <collabot> +1 (14): davidsauvageau, jamil, Xiaojun, ningso, gilesheron, amir_levy, JasonHunt, xinhuili, SteveT, alexvul, cdonley, gilbert, RannyHaiby, Zhaoxing
14:28:55 <kennypaul> #agreed the TSC approves the Infrastructure Coordinator proposal as presented on slide 6 of the TSC meeting slide. deck
14:29:27 <kennypaul> #topic Project Definition Proposal
14:30:33 <kennypaul> #info @SteveT reviewed the slides
14:33:17 <kennypaul> #agreed that project proposal pages should be locked at the version approved
14:34:15 <kennypaul> #info project proposals that have been changed since approved need to be reviewed.
14:35:45 <kennypaul> #agreed the Project Definition Proposal as presented is approved
14:38:58 <kennypaul> #topic VF2F
14:40:08 <kennypaul> #info concerns regarding project meetings not being able occur
14:51:45 <kennypaul> #topic ONS
14:52:44 <kennypaul> #info concerns expressed over cost for attendance and impact to participation
14:54:13 <kennypaul> #info mazin is having conversations with the LFN Board regarding the impact
14:57:03 <kennypaul> #info will not be able to impact March event. Will focus on ONS Europe.
15:01:13 <kennypaul> #topic Runtime Catalog Proposal
15:01:56 <kennypaul> #info Maopeng reviewed the proposal deck.
15:14:32 <kennypaul> #info review by the Arch. Subcommittee
15:15:25 <kennypaul> #info concerns expressed about syncing 2 catalogs
15:19:09 <kennypaul> #info discussion around implementation of functionality SDC
15:20:50 <kennypaul> #info SDC PTL (not on call) is said to have agreed this should be a separate project
15:23:50 <kennypaul> #info need is recognized - concerns are on software side
15:27:27 <kennypaul> #info SO and VID are looking at this for Beijing - depends on the usecase
15:30:06 <kennypaul> #info software review at Arch meeting (Tuesday) , project approval vote next week's TSC meeting.
15:30:32 <kennypaul> #action kennypaul send Arch Sub invite to TSC list
15:33:30 <kennypaul> #endmeeting

...

Zoom Chat Log 

Anchor
zoom zoom

06:11:30 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : +1 on Infrastructure Coordinator Proposal
06:15:54 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : +1 on committer -
06:22:14 From stephen terrill : This is fine. Do we capture this as a TSC policy or someething like that?
06:22:52 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : As a first step, we can reduce the flow from PTL-> Gildas -> TSC to PTL -> Gildas
06:23:05 From Chris Donley : We certainly could.
06:23:29 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : and if everything is going well with Beijing then we can explore Jamil's proposal
06:23:42 From Tony Hansen : two tasks, can both be assigned to one person
06:26:07 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : Excellent - Gildas!
06:26:20 From Randa Maher (AT&T) : thanks, this is a great move! Thanks Gildas for taking it on.
06:26:46 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : @Stephen, maybe we should enhance the TSC chart accordingly
06:27:14 From Gildas Lanilis Huawei : Thanks all for your confidence and support on this. It will help the community.
06:29:07 From Chris Donley : FYI, here was the committer promotion process from OPEN-O: https://wiki.open-o.org/display/TSC/Committer+Promotion+Process. We could write up something similar for ONAP, given today's discussion.
06:29:53 From Chris Donley : The repo creation process could be updated on the Resources and Repositories page.
06:31:18 From ONAP Meeting 1 - Alla : Can we cover virtual and f2f meetings now?
06:31:34 From ONAP Meeting 1 - Alla : I can stay only next 30 min, have conflicting meeting after
06:31:50 From Pamela Dragosh : +1 locking
06:33:01 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : @Chris - +1 for repo on the resources qnd repositories - i think teams are doing this. I will check your link lqter
06:35:15 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : Open for any process simplification - project definition might evolve based on architecture guidelines and use cases so we need to consider this as well
06:42:48 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : can we also have a quick feedback about tools for Python and also additional test framework that will be considered for Beijing?
06:43:35 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : Labs availability for developers to prepare their pair-wise testing including fail-over
06:43:49 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : ONS talk approvals come in on the 6th Feb right?
06:44:06 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : CNCF, OPNFV yes
06:45:28 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : OPNFV auto project pulls HEAT and OOM deployments of OPNAP
06:45:32 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : ONAP
06:45:52 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : python - yes - for Multicloud
06:46:23 From shankar : The Python session would be useful for OOF as well. OOF is a pure python project.
06:48:52 From shankar : Would there be sessions in Virtual F2F happening in parallel ?
06:59:09 From Seshu : :)
07:05:24 From Seshu : Intel onap team would be much better
07:06:28 From Brian : what is the impact on the projects that get models from SDC distribution client today ?
07:07:35 From Alex Vul (Intel) : Why wouldn't we start with SDC catalog implemetnation instead of re-inventing the wheel?
07:07:52 From Pamela Dragosh : Projects would have to implement 2 api’s for the 2 catalogs. Big impact.
07:08:22 From Alex Vul (Intel) : projects would only work against RT catalog...
07:08:42 From Alex Vul (Intel) : i.e. projects would only deal with NS and VNF designs promoted to production...
07:08:51 From Pamela Dragosh : Not necessarily, some projects are BOTH design time and run time. So they would need both.
07:08:52 From Alex Vul (Intel) : Jason - yes...
07:08:59 From Ting Lu : Look at the initial step implenetation here.
07:09:25 From Ting Lu : There are not impact to the RT compoennts.
07:09:48 From Brian : how does ops role ops001 know that th emodels were succesffully distributed ?
07:10:08 From Jason Hunt : I’m worried about sync of two catalogs. Could these runtime functions be implemented into the SDC catalog (along line of Alex’s question)?
07:10:34 From Mazin : Was this verified by the architecture team.
07:10:59 From Alex Vul (Intel) : we will need multiple copies becasuse of the deployment scenarios, but these should be copies of the SAME implementation...
07:11:28 From Alex Vul (Intel) : much like we talk about "service" and "resource" orchestration being implemented using the same orchestration funciton....
07:11:43 From nagu : does it mean RT catalog must be always available for other ONAP components e.g., SO to function correctly
07:12:03 From Alex Vul (Intel) : Mazin - i brought up ,many of these concerrns before
07:12:13 From Chris Donley : @Mazin - yes, RT Catalog got the green light from ARC.
07:12:13 From Alex Vul (Intel) : but apparently we can just forge ahead
07:12:36 From Chris Donley : they met with us a few times and incorporated the feedback.
07:13:53 From Dhananjay Pavgi : It defeats the Architecture philosophy of separating Design and Run time envrionment. If we have different catalogs in Design and Run time.
07:14:58 From Dhananjay Pavgi : Whole rational is to have model driven models driving run time envrionment. Catalog once driven at Design Time should be consumed for "service specifics" or instances
07:15:54 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : Ting Lu - thanks for the design/runtime clarification - was going to ask which is the source of truth - as in keeping them in sync - I need to understand if SDC is also the RT source in that case and not just distribution
07:18:16 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : Ideally I would like to see a model driven "expected state" - where the system maintains this - like in Kubernetes where it is both distribution and runtime - will educate myself more - good discussion
07:18:24 From Dhananjay Pavgi : Isn't it TOSCA model that gets distributed as a metadata model?
07:18:37 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : Yes good TOSCA point
07:19:28 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : Yes need MIchael Definitely
07:20:05 From Jason Hunt : If we think of models as source code, would we have design-time vs run-time source code repositories?
07:21:01 From Huabing Zhao : @Michale Runtime Catalog will not change the TOSCA model generated by SDC
07:21:27 From Brian : many of these components use the SDC client to interact with SDC and the DMaaP topics - will it be the same SDC client from SDC with th eRT catalog ?
07:21:30 From Helen Chen : I am second that the catalog should have the same implementation code base. But it could be deployment in two places.
07:22:00 From Pamela Dragosh : Good question Brian, that is not clear at all.
07:22:09 From Helen Chen : Or we refectory the catalog out into a separate project?
07:23:35 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : +1 for Jason meet on software impact
07:23:44 From Brian : +1
07:23:45 From nagu : +1
07:23:47 From Pamela Dragosh : +1 also for Jason and software architects
07:24:04 From Alex Vul (Intel) : +1
07:25:32 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : (if arch team approves) - I am +1 creation (defer to arch team) just need to understand API impact
07:25:59 From Dhananjay Pavgi : We could certainly.
07:26:16 From Dhananjay Pavgi : Can't think about a use case that would break for the lack of this project for Beijing, Mazin
07:26:36 From Helen Chen : Prefer to do it right instead of rush.
07:27:13 From Dhananjay Pavgi : Can we discuss and debate use case that breaks existing architecture and warrants this proposed project to be quintessential?
07:27:19 From Helen Chen : duplicated code and inconsistency is scaring.
07:28:53 From Dhananjay Pavgi : Spot on Helen.
07:29:01 From Alex Vul (Intel) : +1
07:30:04 From Alex Vul (Intel) : I've built distributed catalogs before, and this is typically a function of a single catalog implementation...
07:30:14 From Michael O'Brien (Logging) : will do - Tue 10EST (GMT-5) - see you there Chris
07:30:41 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : it will be important to understand the prioirty of RT Catalog vs the other use cases and SP3.
07:31:14 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : not sure that all PTLs will be able to commit for additional work beyond what they were committing at M1 milestone
07:32:06 From Catherine Lefevre (AT&T) : for Beijing - we should at least have an agreement on the project + low level design details so the development team will have all what they need to move to the implementation as early as they have the bandwidth