BRIDGE: https://zoom.us/j/661303200
Attendance - 94%
| Attended | Proxy (w/ @name) | Gov. Holiday | Did Not Attend |
|---|
| Bell Canada | Tech Mahindra | |||
Alla.Goldner - proxy: Andrei Kojukhov | AMDOCS | Turk Telecom | ||
| DT | Reliance Jio | |||
| WindRiver | Srinivasa Addepalli - proxy; Ipan | Intel | ||
| AT&T | Stephen terrill - proxy: Ciaran Johnston | Ericsson | ||
Chaker Al-Hakim - proxy: Seshu Kumar Mudiganti | Huawei | Susana Sabater - proxy: Davide Cherubini | Vodafone | |
Eric Debeau - proxy: Paweł Pawlak | Orange | Timo Perala - proxy: Ben | Nokia | |
djhunt : Krill Lukashin | IBM | Verizon | ||
| China Mobile | China Telecom |
Time | Agenda Items | Presented By | Presos/Notes/Links/ | JIRA Tasks | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 | Release Status |
El-Alto Timeline Clarifications - Release Planning
Container to be delivered to Integration Team by July 29th, 2019
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | RelEng/Infrastructure |
Security- ONAP Vulnerability Disclosure AAF-New ticket is coming
Closed AAF-https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/servicedesk/customer/portal/2/IT-16826 | #Action - AAF Lesson Learnt? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | PTL Update - CLAMP, ExtAPI | Gervais-Martial Ngueko | PTL elections are in progress Congratulations to !!!
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 | Subcommittee UpdateSecurity | Review CVEs proposal - https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-seccom/message/1389 and Fixing Vulnerabilities in the ONAP Code Base
Review updated Vulnerability Review Table - Security/Vulnerability Threat Template - El Alto OJSI notifications & timeline (Seshu) => Request to extend the notification period or get a waiver due to the notification issue for Seshu - Paweł Pawlak , Seshu Kumar Mudiganti - discussion offline and will come back to the TSC if no agreement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
20 | Subcommittee UpdateUse Case |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | TSC Activities and Deadlines |
https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/5231
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Incoming Events |
|
Action Items
- Paweł Pawlak to provide update at the next PTL meeting for CII Badging silver passing criteria for El Alto release
Zoom Chat Log
16:05:26 From CMCC Lingli : #info Lingli, CMCC
16:21:14 From Ben Cheung : they will be in this link: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Release+6+%28Frankfurt%29+proposed+use+cases+and+functional+requirements
16:21:27 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : #info, Murat Turpçu, TTG
16:29:13 From Brian : TSC Agreed to continue with the content of M1 for El Alto Early Drop
16:31:34 From Viswa ( Verizon ) : #info Viswa, Verizon
16:33:34 From Sai Seshu : #Pawel would be discussing the silver badging criteria on Monday PTL meeting.
16:37:00 From Keong : losing some audio ben
16:40:23 From Keong : i think ONAP should start with the definition of a full and proper contribution, then the PoC should allow some temporary waiver on some of those definitions
16:43:41 From Keong : the PoC should comply to https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Open+Source
16:44:36 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : is vnf s used in PoC part of the discussion?
16:46:13 From Keong : this definition only needs to include the ONAP contribution part
16:47:38 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : yes sure
16:48:45 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : so why are we discussing this topic?
16:51:14 From Brian : They are part of the PR about using a release and in some cases use ONAP team resources to test/execute the POC
16:51:49 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : if its not going to be a part of onap why are we discussing, everyone can do anything
16:51:58 From Viswa ( Verizon ) : +1 Murat
16:52:07 From Viswa ( Verizon ) : Exactly my point last week’s TSC
16:52:33 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : but if its going to use resources it should be at a part at least some point
16:52:59 From Taka Cho : how about using different Repo?
16:54:04 From Brian : I think that is the criteria of why to do a POC in onap is that it will eventually be a formal feature in the release - if its not going to be "in" ONAP then the team should do it outside of ONAP on their resources (labs and people)
16:54:10 From Keong : so https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/DataLake+POC would need to be reworked to fit the new definition?
16:54:41 From Brian : Its great that people care passionately about POCs :)
16:54:49 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : we discussed that we dont have enough resources to support projects and agreed to improve servers
16:55:22 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : if something not going to be a part of onap, we should not use resources
16:55:24 From ONAP Meeting 2 : I assume that any code in an ONAP repository - regardless of POC branch or not - should be open source. It would only be build dependencies or external services that can be proprietary?
16:55:29 From Dan Timoney : Does that separate branch have to enforce normal rules regarding things like Sonar coverage %, builds always pass, etc? If so, then that’s additional overhead for the PTL(who generally is the one on the hook to resolve build errors, etc)
16:56:23 From Brian : only external services/vnfs/pnfs would be proprietary - I dont think we can ever have proprietary softwrae in ONAP repositories
16:56:58 From Marco Platania (AT&T) : Jimmy for AAI
16:57:03 From Marco Platania (AT&T) : Dan T for CCSDK
17:00:19 From Dan Timoney to Catherine Lefèvre(Privately) : I’m renewed at the moment as CCSDK PTL only … still waiting for SDNC committers to vote (one is on vacation this week, so extended vote to next week)
17:00:49 From Dan Timoney to Catherine Lefèvre(Privately) : Running unopposed, so its really just a formality but still
17:05:20 From Amy Zwarico : added djangoframework to https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Fixing+Vulnerabilities+in+the+ONAP+Code+Base
17:06:57 From Brian : have to drop