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 20 Current »

BRIDGE: https://zoom.us/j/661303200

Attendance 

AttendedProxy (w/ @name)Gov. HolidayDid Not Attend

Attendance is taken purely upon #info in Zoom Chat 

AMDOCS

djhunt proxy @Padmasankar Jadu

IBM
DT
China Mobile
WindRiver
Turk Telecom
AT&T
Reliance Jio
Ericsson
Bell Canada
Vodafone
Samsung
China Telecom
Huawei
Orange
Intel
Verizon
Nokia

Time
(mins)

Agenda Items

Presented By

Presos/Notes/Links/

Decisions/Actions

75


Release Status

  • #AGREED the TSC approves granting a waiver for the Portal project for REQ-64 for the Frankfurt release
  • #AGREED the TSC agrees to the following- 1) list from SECCOM, 2) plan forward, 3) resume project review "MVP" 4) ensure that all issues are OK by RC0.
  • owners: 1) SECCOM, 2) Release Manager, 3) Chaker & Jason, 4) Integration team evaluation

5

RelEng/Infrastructure

Remember - code coverage criteria i.e. 55% AND migration to SonarCloud must be completed by RC0 


1

PTL Update - Integration

Creation of 1 new repositorie (for the bbs use case)

https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/5980

#AGREED BBS repo approved

10

Subcommittee Update

Architecture

Documentation Prototype review

Arch review policy and process

VOTE: Does the TSC approve the architectural review policy and process documented above.


 30 

 El Alto Retrospective

Action Plan


El Alto Retrospective Results (move to next week's meeting)move to next week
 5

Documentation Hackathon results + Wiki Migration Status


1

TSC Activities and Deadlines

Input for ONAP End-User Documentation

Internships - all 4 projects approved  - check scope/change for Modeling/esticatalog - https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-tsc/message/6038

#ACTION @Fred to review Modeling/ETSIcatalog intern revisions

5

Upcoming Events

  • ONAP Documentation hackathon -  March 25th 
    •  Please add your topic to the planning page
  • LFN Technical Meetings  - Virtual Event
    • Discussed at the March 11 TAC meeting
    • ONAP input to TAC: 3 hours per day,  for 3 days, held between 13:00 UTC and 16:100 UTC April 21-23
    • Need 2-3 volunteers to to be on a LFN Joint Planning Committe

F2F Events (depending on COVI-19 evolution):

  • LFN Developer and Testing Forum on June 1-4, 2020 - TBD may be a Virtual Event
  • ONAP 2 day event after ONS North Europe - Antwerp (TBD)
  • Survey will be sent from LFN for Dec OR Jan for steady-state full DDF meetings to all LFN communities & location


Action Items

Zoom Chat Log 

06:54:26 From Sai Seshu : #info Seshu, huawei
06:54:36 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #topic rollcall
06:54:53 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : #info, Catherine Lefevre, AT&T
06:54:55 From bin.yang@windriver.com : #info Bin Yang, Wind River
06:56:20 From Davide (Vodafone) : #info Davide Cherubini, Vodafone
06:58:20 From Alla Goldner : #info Alla Goldner, Amdocs
06:59:23 From Fernando (Fred) Oliveira : #info Fred Oliveira, Verizon
06:59:43 From Andreas Geissler : #info Andreas Geissler, DT
07:00:10 From Ning So : #info, Ning So, Reliance Jio
07:00:13 From Dong Wang (China Telecom) : #info Dong Wang, China Telecom
07:00:17 From Eric Debeau : #info Eric Debeau, Orange
07:00:52 From Olivier Phenix : #info Olivier Phenix, Bell Canada
07:01:23 From Ranny Haiby (Samsung) : #info Ranny Haiby, Samsung
07:01:34 From Ciaran Johnston : #info Ciaran Johnston, Ericsson
07:02:01 From Srini (Intel) : #info Srini Addepalli, Intel
07:02:17 From Timo Perala (Nokia) : #info Timo Perala, Nokia
07:03:21 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #topic release status
07:06:19 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : https://jira.onap.org/browse/REQ-64
07:06:59 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : https://jira.onap.org/browse/OJSI-190
07:12:56 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : -discussion of REQ-64 which is impacted by a lack for resources in the Portal project.
07:12:57 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : #info, MURAT TURPCU,türk telekom
07:13:06 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : @murat thks
07:16:54 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #vote does the TSC approve granting a waiver for the Portal project for REQ-64 for the Frankfurt release? +1, 0, -1
07:17:07 From Srini (Intel) : +1
07:17:08 From Andreas Geissler : #vote +1
07:17:10 From Fernando (Fred) Oliveira : +1
07:17:11 From bin.yang@windriver.com : #vote +1
07:17:14 From Dong Wang (China Telecom) : #vote +1
07:17:15 From Sai Seshu : #vote +1
07:17:17 From Ning So : #vote +1
07:17:18 From Ranny Haiby (Samsung) : #vote +1
07:17:24 From Fernando (Fred) Oliveira : #vote +1
07:17:28 From Ciaran Johnston : #vote +1
07:17:29 From Timo Perala (Nokia) : #vote +1
07:17:29 From Davide (Vodafone) : #vote +1
07:17:30 From Olivier Phenix : #vote +1
07:17:31 From Srini (Intel) : #vote +1
07:17:45 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : #vote +1 wiht a waiver definition?
07:18:07 From Eric Debeau : #vote 0
07:18:25 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #endvote
07:18:32 From Alla Goldner : #vote +1
07:19:12 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #AGREED the TSC approves granting a waiver for the Portal project for REQ-64 for the Frankfurt release
07:24:56 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : -discussion of delaying the release due to security issues or not
07:34:53 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : -concerns regarding ecosystem partners regarding ONAP
07:40:20 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : -SECCOM recommends a single model for user management
07:45:52 From Olivier Phenix : I have to drop for 15 minutes for an emergency here at Bell, will reconnect asap
07:51:15 From Srini (Intel) : Few people I talked to don't use Portal Micro-service and many use APIs directly exposed by SDC and SO. Also, these intend to use API Gateway/Service-mesh for centralized authentication and authorization.
07:53:23 From David Perez (Swisscom) : the portal is not really usable today, that may be a reason. Still many issues with making portal working out of the box (certificates)
07:54:31 From Krzysztof Opasiak : agree, and certificates are one of key points that should be solved by introducing a proper security framework and SSO
07:55:17 From Srini (Intel) : So, I agree with other views that each project should be considered independent of others instead of comprehensive ONAP as we are doing. Like CNCF. THis is a bigger discussion though.
07:55:40 From Krzysztof Opasiak : +1 towhat Srini wrote
07:58:39 From Srini (Intel) : Jason mentioned in R2 itself that we should adopt service mesh technologies such as ISTIO to centralize authentication and authorization and each application micro-service shall not be concerned about security issues. ISTIO does good job of this - Supports three types of users (Cert users, normal user/password, tokens), can authenticate with OATUH2 external servers and has granular API level permission checks. I know that Sylvan started ISTIO activity. If that happens, all these challenges are automagically taken care as nothing is to be done in each microservice.
08:00:26 From Krzysztof Opasiak : +1 to what Srini wrote above. Actually that is what I view as the only chance for ONAP to implement a proper security framework with a rational amount of resources
08:00:48 From Pawel Pawlak : I am sorry, I have to drop
08:04:08 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : -summary 1) list from SECCOM, 2) plan forward, 3) resume project review "MVP" 4) insure that all issues are OK by RC0
08:04:14 From Sai Seshu : +1 on srini
08:04:37 From Andreas Geissler : +1 to Srini's comments as well
08:06:40 From Eric Debeau : +2 with Srini
08:06:46 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : -from prague: ONAP lifecycle https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/download/attachments/25364127/ONAP%20Proj%20Lifecycle%20and%20Review%2015Jan2020%20v1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1579170479000&api=v2 ONAP release cadence https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/download/attachments/25364127/ONAP%20Release%20Candence%20Proposal%2016Jan2020.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1579173655000&api=v2
08:07:19 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : #vote +1 to implement the 4 actions
08:08:39 From Sai Seshu : #vote +1
08:08:47 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #vote Does the TSC agree to the following- 1) list from SECCOM, 2) plan forward, 3) resume project review "MVP" 4) ensure that all issues are OK by RC0? +1, 0 -1
08:09:43 From Srini (Intel) : #vote +1 ( I hope plan will include plan to replace all security with ISTIO)
08:09:50 From Ciaran Johnston : #vote +1
08:09:53 From Sai Seshu : #vote +1
08:09:54 From Ranny Haiby (Samsung) : #vote +1
08:09:55 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : owners: 1) SECCOM, 2) Release Manager, 3) Chaker & Jason, 4) Integration team evaluation
08:09:59 From Fernando (Fred) Oliveira : #vote +1
08:10:00 From Andreas Geissler : #vote +1
08:10:01 From nings : #vote +1
08:10:02 From Dong Wang (China Telecom) : #vote +1
08:10:03 From Eric Debeau : #vote +1
08:10:14 From Davide (Vodafone) : #vote +1
08:10:27 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : #vote +1 -Big thanks
08:10:30 From Timo Perala (Nokia) : #vote +1
08:10:36 From bin.yang@windriver.com : #vote +1
08:10:38 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #endvote
08:10:52 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : #vote +1
08:12:12 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #AGREED the TSC agrees to the following- 1) list from SECCOM, 2) plan forward, 3) resume project review "MVP" 4) ensure that all issues are OK by RC0.
08:13:49 From Olivier Phenix : Late to the party, but absolutely agree with Srini and Krzysztof wrote earlier about ISTIO
08:14:01 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #AGREED BBS repo approved
08:17:06 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : Thanks Fred
08:17:32 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #ACTION @Fred to review Modeling/ETSIcatalog intern revisions https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/x/CQH_AQ
08:17:41 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : if any TSC also wants to review ETSI change then please provide your feedback to Fred for consolidation
08:18:00 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : #topic ARCHCOM
08:20:13 From Kenny Paul (LFN) : -Arch doc prototype was reviewed
08:23:04 From Sai Seshu : +1 for the ETSI Help to Fred.
08:23:27 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : thanks seshu
08:23:35 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : Pretty cool Chaker !!
08:25:14 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : WOW - Really goood !
08:27:58 From Andy Mayer (AT&T) : The modeling subcommittee and documentation project have been working on an API documentation approach that includes using tools like Redoc that Chaker is showing. See: https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/Developing+ONAP+API+Documentation
08:28:27 From Olivier Phenix : I didn't want to unmute just to say this, but for my part I really like it Chaker
08:28:55 From Srini (Intel) : It is really cool and easy to navigate.
08:29:04 From Murat Turpcu,Turk Telekom : +1 Chaker
08:29:33 From David Perez (Swisscom) : +1 this proposal helps with navigating the doc
08:30:31 From Srini (Intel) : Only one feedback on documentation. We have fantastic API documentation. But, having 'Concepts' documentation would be very good, just like this: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/
08:34:49 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : great stuff Andreas/Sofia !
08:35:00 From Eric Debeau : @Srini, we strated a glossary...to be extended
08:36:58 From Catherine Lefèvre (ONAP) : great job Doc team !
08:37:46 From Chaker Al-Hakim : thanks for the feedback



  • No labels