CNF 2021 Meeting Minutes

Owned by cl664y@att.com
Last updated: Jan 18, 2022
31 min read

Meeting Minutes 

Jan 7th, 2021 at 3.30pm UTC 

  • Review our Calendar - Decision to setup CNF Task Force call every Tuesday at 2pm UTC until Daylight saving time will end in March
  • Review (and refine if necessary) this taskforce goals. Other than the on-going work, what is the next big thing we want to tackle as a taskforce?

#1 Define/Implement CNF Release Requirements

#2 Promote what we have developed

#3 Define new use cases considering latest Industry/Vendor/Open Source solutions i.e. XGVela, Anuket

  • Continue discussion between Aarna and SO team to figure out if some of the Aarna work can be re-used by SO
  • Any topic we want to submit for the February DDF event?
    • What will be ONAP priorities to remain in alignment with Industry/Standards?
    • What would be our ONAP 2021 CNF Task Force priorities (after Honolulu) - brainstorming?
    • Video Guilin CNF?
    • CNF Task Force Office Hours

Jan 12th, 2021 at 2pm UTC 

  • Recap what was discussed last week
  • Review CNF Event submission
  • EAUG - is there any CNF requirement in their 2021 wish list?
  • Reconnect with the CNF Sub-tasks (ETSI & CNF modeling/AAI)
  • New CNCF principles - probably to check in February 2021
  • OVP - Badging for the infrastructure - anything we should consider for ONAP this year?
  • Review Satoshi Fujii- Presentation - CNF Control Loop

Jan 19th, 2021 at 2pm UTC 

Jan 26th, 2021 at 2pm UTC 

  • Review CNF Closed Loop proposal (Satoshi Fujii) with PTLs (SO, AAI, DCAE and Policy)
     
    • Consider EMCO as part of the CNF Closed loop
    • Great Feedback provided by AAI/DCAE/Policy/SO Project Team members (listen to the recording (smile))

No CNF meeting on Feb 2nd, 2021 (DDF event)

Feb 9th, 2021 at 2pm UTC

#1 Invite Open-Ness representatives to discuss about EMCO :  Former user (Deleted)and Todd Malsbary to provide update on the helm charts. Guidance to address few comments.  How to treat EMCOv2 (Multi Cloud K8s plugin). Some options:

  1. Use binary images from external repositories (Similar to databases, Vault and others) where docker images of EMCOv2 is used from Public docker repositories
  2. Treat it as external upstream project, but build and publish the docker images in ONAP registry.
  3. Go with the approach adopted for ODL (where source code is replicated in ONAP repos and constantly synchronize with upstream).
  4. Let the deployment admin deploy EMCOv2 before deploying rest of ONAP.

<Will be re-discussed as soon as Green light received from LFN>

#2 Upcoming ETSI NFV Workshop on April 12 - Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed)  

Event link not yet available

Fernando Oliveira, Byung-Woo Jun will represent the ONAP Community (ETSI & CNF Task Forces) at this event - Thank you !

#3 Discussion between ETSI NFV team and Direct path team presented by Fernando Oliveira and Byung-Woo Jun

  • Common CNF packaging

Challenge: Find vendors willing to submit their commercial NF to the ONAP Community

Suggestion to use: https://www.open5gcore.org/ and https://free5gc.org/

Reference CNF: https://github.com/electrocucaracha/gw-tester

  • VNF-D needed?
  • Other artifacts needed?

Feb 16th, 2021 at 2pm UTC

  • - Interested in pursuing badging for ONAP CNF workloads in 2021?
    • OVP: Roadmap 2021
      • Q1: Infrastructure, in alignment with Reference Architecture 2 (Anuket)
      • Q2-Q3:
        • #1 Reference Architecture 2 Interoperability (Anuket);
        • #2 Compliance in alignment with ONAP CNF On-boarding/Instantiation capabilities
        • #3 Cloud Native workload
    • Badging will also evolve based on requirements, testing
    • Initial ONAP Community Request(s)
      • Validate if Common CNF packages are in alignment with ETSI including providing information to OVP team about outcomes from our ONAP VNF-D solution; split k8s vs CNF packages, etc.
      • Requirements related to k8S ? Maybe provided based on CNCF
    • Any request from OVP To ONAP Community to support OVP Badging?
      • Any VNFSDK requirement?
      • Any SDC requirement (onboarding)?
    • ONAP should remain "Cloud Agnostic", not tight to any RA2 requirement (Infrastructure perspective)
    • OVP is gathering requirements from the different communities; acting as "Bridge" Lead for CNF activities
    • CNCF: Focus on CNF for Telcos, best practices

Feb 23rd, 2021 at 2pm UTC

  •  Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed)  - Share an alternative Common CNF Packaging - postponed to March 9th - work on CNF packaging is running a bit behind schedule.
    • Nokia is exploring on "CNFD", similar to the existing "VNFD" and "PNFD". A CNFD may be treated similarly to a PNFD, which is sort of a black-box, and handed over to another entity like K8S to orchestrate. 
    • Marian Darula commented - introducing a CNFD in addition to a VNFD creates a challenge for xNF vendors. Why not re-use the VNFD? Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed) - CNFD orchestration is based on Helm charts and not TOSCA, hence a VNFD is not very useful for CNF orchestration. 
    • Nokia aims to separate resource orchestration (in the Helm chart) from application orchestration (in the CNFD).
    • Marian Darula - There is urgency in finalizing the packaging - vendors need to deliver CNFs.
  • ESTI Workshop updates -  Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed)  - New dates: April 21st and 22nd, 2021 - Registration link to be shared as soon as available
  • EMCO
  • Update from Victor Morales :  CNF Reference (Core Network) 

March 2nd, 2021 at 2pm UTC

  • CNF Reference deep-dive
    • Walkthrough of the Core Network reference CNF (https://github.com/gw-tester) by Victor Morales
      • The project was recently moved to  new Github organization.
      • Supports DANM, Multus or NSM
      • Question: What kind of K8S deployment is assumed? IS it KUD/KRD? Answer: No. There is no assumption of specific K8S deployment.
      • Question: What kind of K8S cluster is assumed? Is it just a single node? Answer: No assumption on number of nodes. 
      • Question: Is there support for a cluster running on OpenStack? Answer: Currently packaged in Vagrant. May work on OpenStack, but may require some extra work.
      • Question: Are there any parameters that can be configured (Day2)? Is there any telemetry provided by the CNF? A: Not yet, but it could be added.
      • Question: Which components could be scaled out using a replica set? Answer: eNodeB may be a candidate for that.
      • Question: Can the CNF be used without a multiplexing CNI plugin (Using Calico or Flannel for example) Answer: In theory it might be possible with some minor modifications, but it was never tested.
      • Next Step: Fernando Oliveira will work on better understanding parameterization and will work on creating an ETSI based package and VNFD.
  • Clock Changes: in US on March 14th, 2021; in Europe on March 28th, 2021; No change in India/China - Shall we change our CNF Task Force schedule as previously discussed?
    • One hour before TSC - AI - Ranny to send a mail to the workgroup and get confirmation.

March 9th, 2021 at 2pm UTC

  • ONAP/OVP - Inputs from/to ONAP/OVP Community in addition to what was discussed on 2/16. What are the other functionalities, test coverage are available with OVP today? What other communities (in addition to Anuket, CNCF, ONAP) collaborate with OVP?
    • Update from Olivier Smith - Change of chair in the OVP program. OVP 2.0 is being rebranded as "Anuket Assured". First badge will be released this summer, aligned with Anuket RA2. Working with the CNCF on cloud-native behavior for network functions. That will take some time to mature. OVP 2.0 is not writing  requirements. It is coordinating the tests and requirements between the various communities. Expectations from ONAP is to  have well-defined CNF modeling and a set of tests for verification. Validation tests in ONAP may exist in VVP or VNFSDK. No preference from the "Anuket Assured" side.
    • Update from Former user (Deleted) - During Frankfurt, The "CNF Conformance" tool from the CNCF was integrated into VNFSDK. Based on the CNF modeling approach chosen by ONAP, VNFSDK may need to be updated. This was part of the CNTP effort. REQ335- REQ338 . https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DW/Guilin+Release+Requirements
    • Former user (Deleted) may continue serving as the main ONAP contact point, representing the VNFSDK.
    • VVP contact point -  steven stark
    • What kind of validation should ONAP require for CNFs? Packaging and on-boarding only?
      • On-boarding=SDC. SDC can now ingest and distribute Helm charts. In future releases it will also be validated. In Honolulu there is work to support ETSI packaging (SOL004).
    • Do we want to cover more (E.g. the application layer functionality of the CNF)?
      • We should probably not go into the application layer. This means we will follow the same approach we used for VNFs.
    • There will probably be different badges for different levels of conformance.
  • ETSI Event - April 21st - https://www.etsi.org/events/upcoming-events/1892-nfvevolution

March 18th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Satoshi Fujii - proposal update from Fujitsu: k8s network design and config draft rev2.pptx
    • Proposal deals with the challenge of migrating workloads between K8S clusters
    • The approach is separating network design and CNI configuration
    • According to the proposal the user will create virtual networks and ONAP will generate the CNI configuration and inject it into the Helm charts at deployment time.
    • The proposal leverages EMCO (from OpenNESS). There were questions of the exact functionality provided by ONAP.
    • AI for Satoshi Fujii - prepare a follow-up presentation about the use of EMCO and the value it brings.
  • Update from Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed)on ETSI event
    • There are only 15 minutes for the entire presentation
    • There is a need to submit an abstract by 3/22
  • Former user (Deleted) - ONAP CNF compliance badging
    • VTP enhancements to support CNFs
    • VTP needs to get the requirements for CNF packaging from ONAP
    • Former user (Deleted) - Are there ETSI SOL004 specifications? Fernando Oliveira - This is work in progress in Honolulu
    • VTP test development is planned for the Istanbul release. Need to have the requirements table ready by the start of the release. Fernando Oliveira volunteered to work on that.
    • cl664y@att.com - Some of the VNF requirements might be applicable for CNFs
    • The VNF requirements are at VNF TOSCA Requirements . cl664y@att.com suggested Taskforce members take a look and provide feedback.

March 25th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

April 1st, 2021 at 1pm UTC

April 8th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Lukasz Rajewski and Seshu Kumar Mudiganti will share the plans for Istanbul. May be in WIP state.  REQ-627 - Getting issue details... STATUS  - no updates yet.
    • No architectural changes expected. 
    • Marian Darula - Are Helm charts alone sufficient for modeling CNFs, or is there a need for external modeling. Lukasz Rajewski - Multi cluster is still a challenge.
    • Byung-Woo Jun & Marian Darula  - There is a need for an additional descriptor. The ETSI approach of a TOSCA descriptor on top of Helm could be a good approach. Lukasz Rajewski  - The multi-cluster network connectivity is an example of a modeling aspect that needs to be handled outside the Helm charts. The Nokia proposal may hold the solution for this issue.

  • From Former user (Deleted) : I have created the place holder for supporting the CNF badging from ONAP perspective here https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/wiki/display/DW/Anuket+Assured+-+ONAP+CNF+Compliance+Badge 
    In order to plan the same for next release, would like to get filled following items asap from CNF Task Force and Modelling team. Could you please help to identify the owners for the below items. Thank you

1. CNF Model Element Structure

This is related to our discussion on reaching consensus on packaging - it is still work in progress.

2. CNF badging requirements 

We would like to get a better understanding of what the requirements should look like.

3. Sample CNF (ex: vFW) already supported in ONAP

Only existing CNF is the vFW, but it is not optimal as a "CNF reference". Other "Reference CNF" proposed by Samsung is not yet on-boarded to ONAP. cl664y@att.com - the 5G-Super-Blueprint is working on on-boarding Magma (https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/LFN+Demo%3A+5G+Super+Blueprint)

April 15th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • All: 5G-Super-Blueprint - which CNF features we should utilize in this use case - impact on future requirements
    • How to integrate with the Magma Orchestrator/controller
    • Can ONAP treat the Magma Orchestrator as a CNF? We are assuming it is.
    • The LTE version of Magma uses VNFs. The newly released 5G-SA version may be more CNF oriented.
    • We need more information from the Magma side. Next ONAP-Enterprise call is planned for April 28th.
  • Lukasz Rajewski presented the Honolulu CNF capabilities ( REQ-458 - Getting issue details... STATUS ) - PLACEHOLDER - Lukasz Rajewski will upload the slides.
    • CDS Day 1/2 operations
    • K8S Plugin Day2
    • Zu Qiang - Q: How is CNF package distributed? A: Same as VNF. Q: How is configuration done - how is CDS triggered? Is it through SDNC? A:No. SO triggers the CDS directly. CDS and SDNC are both part of CCSDK.
  • Lukasz Rajewski and Seshu Kumar Mudiganti will share the plans for Istanbul. May be in WIP state.  REQ-627 - Getting issue details... STATUS
    • SDC Changes - Helm validation. Alignment with ETSI CNF Package (when ready)
    • A&AI - Bring information about the deployed resources from K8S and make them appear in A&AI. Requires discussion with the modeling subcommittee. Lukasz Rajewski will work with Andy Mayer on modeling changes for Istanbul.
    • SO - Distribute Helm package using CNFs-adapter. CNF-adapter health check.
    • K8S plugin - Switch to Helm 3.5
    • New Use case - Possibly Free5GC, based on some work done by Orange.
    • General comment - Plan is not finalized because there are still no confirmed resources for some of the planned functionality.
    • cl664y@att.com  - recommends review of the Istanbul plan by the A&AI and SDC PTLs.

April 22nd, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Invite CNF vendors to provide feedback on the CNF onboarding based on their experience with their CNFs.
    • Kamel Idir - volunteered to provide feedback based on his experience
      • Tried both types of packages - ETSI and ONAP
      • Experience is with the Frankfurt release (Heat template wrapper)
      • ONAP VNFD - Under TOSCA There is a namespace. If a vendor uses its own namespace it does not work out of the box. Expect to have a way to change the namespace supported by ONAP. There was a requirement for SDC to support changing the namespace. Workaround - Change the CNF package provided by the vendor to match the ONAP namespace.
      • While designing a service using SDC, ran into an issue with the interfaces as defined by the vendors - use different types than the ones supported by ONAP.
      • ChrisC - There were changes made in Honolulu - https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/wiki/download/attachments/16469107/SDCMultiModelSupport.pptx?version=1&modificationDate=1618834987000&api=v2&download=true
      • Kamel Idir -  Is there support for SOL007 design? ChrisC - It might be included in the recent changes (Honolulu). There is a way to indicate whether you are using ONAP or ETSI package.In the future it might be possible to translate between the two formats.
      • SDC has a limitation on size of images in the Helm charts. SDC has a 8MB limitation. Kamel Idir indicates it is not sufficient for the CNFs he on-boarded. Workaround - Onboard images to Docker image registry and reference them. Some vendors provide embedded images which will require modification. ChrisC - The solution might not be having SDC handle the images. It is not designed to serve as image storage. Kamel Idir- Manipulating the package provided by a vendor to extract the images might jeopardize package integrity. Zu Qiang - Extracting the images during on-boarding may not impact the integrity. Integrity validation happens before the extraction of the images. Flow is (1) Validate - signature validation (2) Extract (3) Distribute (no signature validation at this stage).

April 29nd, 2021 at 1pm UTC

    • Additional information can be found on the "ONAP for Enterprise" Task Force Wiki (specially on 4/28)
    • Seshu Kumar Mudiganti - Magma may be treated as a 'resource orchestrator', and SO can have an adapter to control it like other resource controllers.Magma does not have LCM capabilities. Magma LCM requires some more research.
    • cl664y@att.com- SO should remain generic. We need to be consistent from an Architecture's perspective i.e. what's the scope of SO vs SDNC-C? When do we take the decision to create an adapter in SO and when SDNC is used?
    • Deploying the Access GW requires running shell commands as root. This may be improved and better automated with ONAP.
    • Opportunity for ONAP: Automate scaling of Magma GW; automate the "magma services" deploymentice
  • Request from yan yan (CVC Committee) - Anuket Assured Re-Launch Release Plan to provide a go/no-go on their requirements / testing input to the badge launch.
  • CVC received the following feedback about ONAP CNF compliance - Is it correct?
    • H Release – ONAP CNF compliance requirements will be delivered by modeling subcommittee
    • I Release – ONAP CNF compliance tests implementation will be delivered by VTP (under VNFSDK)
  • Seshu Kumar Mudiganti  - Updates or requests from the XGVela project
    • Considering integration with 5G core slicing use case in ONAP.
    • Observability - Looking at VES and Prometheus.
    • In the process of finalizing the use case. More details to come soon.
    • XGVela does no plan to introduce new requirements to ONAP, at least not for Istanbul.
    • XGVela - CNF based
    • Requirements are driven by Anuket community

May 6th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • SECCOM Container Logging specs - also applicable to CNF and therefore can it be used for CNF badging? (presented by Amy Zwarico)
    • This is an update to the VNF security requirements
    • Based on industry standards
    • Applicable to CNFs and ONAP containers alike
    • The requirements cover: Event types, log data, log management 
    • Follow-up with OVP PH2 /CNCF (https://github.com/cncf/cnf-wg/tree/main/cbpps), Anuket Communities to include some of these requirements as part of CNF Badging
  • Agreed that May 13th CNF Call will be canceled

May 20th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

May 27th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Follow up regarding Thin's proposal presented on May 6th, 2021 + e-mail from Fred  - [onap-discuss] Orchestration Scenarios/ETSI Alignment Meeting (May 10)
  • Enhance previous ONAP Cloud Native Vision/Roadmap, highlighting Cloud Native Capabilities provided by ONAP also including our CNF journey (CNFO + CNF/ETSI Alignment)
    • Latest "ONAP Modularity" advancement - possibility to "Pick & Choose" the components we need for a specific use case (OOM Enhancements)

    • The Honolulu release has important updates to support cloud native network functions (CNF). The functionality includes configuration of Helm based CNFs and seamless day 1, 2 operations. The Configuration API allows a user to create, modify and delete Kubernetes (K8s) resource templates and their base parameters and the Profile API allows for sophisticated day 0 configuration. The Query API gathers filtered status of the CNF and the HealthCheck API executes dedicated health check jobs to verify the status of a CNF. This new functionality is implemented in the Controller Design Studio (CDS) component using dedicated templates called Controller Blueprint Archives (CBA). 

    • DCAE simplifies microservice deployment via Helm charts and includes a new KPI microservice. The VES-OpenAPI-Manager allows easier validation of new xNF types against supported VES StndDefined domain improving compliance with 3GPP and O-RAN

    • Application Programming Interface (APIs) 

    • Logs are redirected to SDTOUT
    • ONAP Components are containerized and are deployed on virtual, shared and elastic infrastructure.
    • Built based on DevOps Toolchain (CI/CD, Gating, etc.)

Additional separated key messaging: Support ORAN SC SMO + Support Enterprise business (E2E Network Slicing, etc.)

Ranny Haiby , Byung-Woo Jun , Timo Perala , Seshu Kumar Mudiganti  to discuss this request with Architecture, Requirement & MAC subcommittees


June 3rd, 2021 at 1pm UTC

June 17th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

June 24th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • ASD Updates (based on Monday meeting progress) - Good progress was made. Still working on modeling. There is a wiki page for collaboration - Application Service Descriptor (ASD) and packaging Proposals for CNF
    • The ASD work going on in the "orchestration scenarios" workgroup, and reflected in the above mentioned wiki page, is merging both the "ETSI" and "Native" CNF orchestration paths in ONAP.
    • Q: What will be the format of package that vendors will have to provide for their CNFs? Will it adhere to the SOL004 specification? A:ASD extends SOL004. The intention is to make the ASD extensions become part of SOL004. 
    • The interface between the VNFM and K8S should be tabled SOL018. Comment: SOL018 is not defined yet. Actually it is better to label it "K8S API". Agreed.
    • Ranny Haiby - To be pragmatic, it is best to focus on existing interfaces (e.g. K8S API) and not wait for ETSI-NFV or the O-RAN alliance to define new abstraction layers. There is a need to finalize the CNF packaging as soon as possible so vendors can use it for their CNFs.
  • Orchestration of Free5GC with Helm charts and CNFO (Ilhem Fajjari, Abderaouf Khichane,Lukasz Rajewski, Michal Chabiera  - Orange) - 30 min
    • Link to slides 
    • Repository: Towards 5GC - Free5GC Helm charts
    • Follow-up meeting about the ONAP orchestration part to be covered at the next meeting
    • Q: What are the requirements for K8S - A: K8S 1.20 (for SCTP), Multus. specific linux core version for worker node hosting UPF
  • Are we OK to meet next week on July 1st, 2021?

July 1st, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Orchestration of Free5GC with CNFO (continuation of ONAP part) - Michal Chabiera and Lukasz Rajewski
    • The goal is to have Free5GCore orchestrated by ONAP, as a PNF/CNF based service
    • Once this is done, it will replace the vFW as the "reference CNF" in ONAP.
    • A RAN Simulator will be used. It is technically a CNF (that will be deployed by ONAP) but it will be treated as a PNF.
    • The planned demo will include upgrade of one of the components (NRF).
    • In the first phase, upgrade and other automation will be triggered manually. Next phases may demonstrate closed loop automation based on metrics collected from the Core, UE etc.
    • Q: How is packaging of CNF handled? Are you planning to use the ONAP CNF packaging? A: Yes. When it is available it should be used.
    • Discussions about what could be the future enhancements on top of what has been presented
    • Great demo !
  • Byung-Woo Junshared the latest CNF Model, Package and Orchestration Architecture presentation - Orchestration Scenarios
  • Review ONAP Cloud Native Vision/Roadmap, highlighting Cloud Native Capabilities provided by ONAP also including our CNF journey (CNFO + CNF/ETSI Alignment)
    • Suggestion to finalize the ASD model before we work with the Architecture/Requirements Subcommittees 
  • Discussions about the Magma onboarding as a CNF - following the process demonstrated by Lukasz Rajewski, Seshu Kumar Mudiganti during the 2021 DDF June Event

July 8st, 2021 at 1pm UTC

July 15th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • ASD Updates after discussion with Nokia, Verizon - Byung-Woo Jun - Pending scheduling meetings (postponed)
  • ONAP "cloud-native" roadmap. Request from LFN to provide vision/timeline slide
    • There is a cross-LFN effort to update the messaging. Last time this was done was 18 months ago. The landscape has changed since then. "cloud-native" is emerging as an area of focus.
    • For ONAP - Updates from the progress of the CNF Taskforce. How ONAP is evolving. Request is to have one slide summarizing the journey ONAP is going through. Should be anchored in actual steps taken, but also some forward looking part. 
    • Anuket RI2 alignment - 5G Super blueprint
    • CNF on-boarding - Including hybrid cloud
    • Q: What is a "cloud-native" ONAP? What is the end goal? That is still being debated in the industry. Meanwhile ONAP is making steps towards this goal. We should be able to highlight this in the messaging slide, even if the end goal is still a moving target.
    • We should not mix the two topics:(1) ONAP orchestrating CNFs (2) ONAP itself adopting a cloud-native architecture. Both topics should be addressed in the messaging slide, but let's keep them separate.


July 22nd, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • ASD Updates after discussion with Nokia, Verizon - Byung-Woo Jun - work in progress
    • plan to report the work outcome next week or so
  • ONAP slide(s) for the LFN Cloud Native messaging
  • Oops! - we forgot to record this meeting...

July 29th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • ONAP slide(s) for the LFN Cloud Native messaging - continue work on the slides
    • Updated version (Byung added Security description; will refine it further) - ONAP_Cloud_Native_v0.3.pptx
    • Continue editing offline - proposal to use Google docs
    • Keep diagrams in block/wire level - Brandon Wick will work with LF creative team to polish graphics.
    • Updated slides with edits made during the meeting - ONAP_Cloud_Native_v0.4.pptx
  • ASD progress: Update on ASD example and requirements, ASD & packaging examples by Thinh Nguyenphu
    • Marian Darula - proposes to promote the use of ASD for O-RAN rApps and xApps in addition to CNFs
    • Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed) - requests review of the requirements in the page linked above. Wiki page comments are welcome.
    • Interested parties may join the "orchestration scenarios" meeting on Mondays 8AM EDT - Orchestration Scenarios
    • Fernando Oliveira - Verizon is proposing an ETSI based packaging for rApps/xApps
  • ONE Summit sessions
    • "Building modern cloud-native network services with ONAP" - accepted. Will be a virtual session. Ranny Haiby reached out to LF events team to figure out the details of how to still allow panel members to attend the event in-person if they wish.
    • ASD session - waitlisted

August 5th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

August 12th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

August 19th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • We had lower than average participation in the meeting today.
  • Brandon Wick is working with LF creative services. Will be ready for review in two weeks. Scheduled for Sep-2nd.
  • Any concern for Istanbul M3 (8/26)
  • ASD - Not much progress. Some Nokia folks on vacation.
  • Slides for ONES - We can re-use the cloud native roadmap slides, with minimal edits.

August 26th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

September 2nd, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Review ONAP Cloud Native journey slides after LF Creative services design. Gather feedback and produce final version - Brandon Wick
  • Slides for ONES - Are we OK with re-using the roadmap slides?
    • The topic of the session is CNF orchestration, so let's focus on slides #1 and #3.
    • Ranny Haiby - Add an introduction slide and create a draft slide deck for the ONE Summit.
  • ASD updates

September 9th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

September 16th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

September 23rd, 2021 at 1pm UTC

September 30th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • ASD Readout (Marian Darula , Byung-Woo Jun ,Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed) )
    • Marian Darula - There is fine tuning going on between Ericsson and Nokia, especially around network interfaces (secondary interface)
    • Official presentation to the forum will be done next week
  • ASD POC (Byung-Woo Jun , Lukasz Rajewski , Seshu Kumar Mudiganti )
    • Working on the details of the architecture - ASD Onboarding and Orchestration PoC
    • Analyzing impact to existing ONAP components. 
    • Starting with on-boarding - what are the implications on SDC.
    • Next items for discussion include modeling for A&AI, How to extract parameter values, how to create custom workflow.
    • Trying to re-use existing flows, where possible.
    • Marian Darula - Final version of ASD is not finalized. Can the PoC progress with the existing version? Byung-Woo Jun - Probably yes. There is enough to start with.
    • Zu Qiang - Modeling should not be driven entirely by the PoC. It should happen independently.
    • Kamel Idir - What will be the impact on service design in SDC? There might be some impact, but exact details are TBD based on the architecture discussion. However, the focus of the PoC is not on instantiation, but rather day 2 configuration and control loop.
  • ASD presentation to the TSC - ASD proposal is ready to be presented, although it is still WIP. Details of the presentation will be discussed on Monday's 'orchestration scenarios' call.

October 7th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

October 14th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

October 21st, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Review the "Welcome" Task Force page (including our HL Vision, etc)
    • Collect the latest versions of CNF Taskforce presentations from recent events - ONE Summit,  DDF, 
    • Ranny Haiby - Propose a new high level structure for the landing page
  • New meeting time after DST ends in the US (Nov-7th)
  • Questions for EMCO
    • What is the division of roles and responsibilities between ONAP and EMCO?
    • Please add questions here: ___
    • Ranny Haiby - Request EMCO rep to join one of the upcoming task force meetings
  • ASD Update 

October 28th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Continue work  on CNF Taskforce landing page. - Please add more items as you see fit - New Landing Page
  • New meeting time after DST ends in the US (Nov-7th) - Ranny Haiby will create a Doodle poll.
  • Cancel CNF Task Force meetings on Nov 11th and Nov 25th? - Tentatively cancel both.
  • ASD review by Requirements subcommittee and IM subcommittee
    • Proposal was well received
    • Modeling subcommittee raised a question regarding other types of deployment items except Helm charts (E.g. Terraform) - This could be a future version functionality
    • ASD information will be populated under the modeling section in the wiki. 
    • The ASD  workgroup is working on an official data model, preparing for an official review by the modeling subcommittee.
    • Jakarta PoC plan was presented and was well received. Additional meeting with SDC is planned. On-boarding process may be adjusted based on data model. ASD onboarding to SDC (WIP) - Application Package Onboarding to SDC
    • SOL004- ETSI is working on Release 4. Now would be a good time to provide the ONAP feedback to ETSI. Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed) proposes a liaison mechanism between ONAP and ETSI on this topic. ASD workgroup will follow-up as necessary.

November 4th, 2021 at 1pm UTC

  • Meeting cancelled

November 16th, 2021 at 2pm UTC

  • Continue work  on CNF Taskforce landing page. - Please add more items as you see fit - New Landing Page
  • Prepare for upcoming meeting with EMCO to discuss details of future integration - Roles and responsibilities, API calls, Integration points (Multicloud vs. directly from SO), any other open technical questions.

November 23rd, 2021 at 2pm UTC

  • Thanksgiving week in the US - Meeting is cancelled.

November 30th, 2021 at 2pm UTC

  • Proposed joint meeting with EMCO technical leaders (Sharad D Mishra (Deactivated) , Srinivasa Addepalli ) to discuss details of future integration - Roles and responsibilities, API calls, Integration points (Multicloud vs. directly from SO), any other open technical questions.
    • Follow-up on analysis done by Orange - EMCO & Ongoing Work in Orange , K8s plugin - Summary and use in ONAP for CNFO
    • Why was EMCO created in the first place? What were the motivations? What ONAP gaps does EMCO address? 
    • A few initial gaps for integration were identified by Lukasz Rajewski 
    • Srinivasa Addepalli - EMCOs goal is to deploy "complex" applications (or CNFs) across multiple K8S clusters. It continues monitoring the deployed applications and provides status. EMCO assumes K8S is the cloud infrastructure, but it supports VMs as well.  It can communicate with public cloud APIs (Azure, GCP). EMCO v1 was integrated with ONAP multicloud, which handles single CNFs. EMCO v2 can handle a network service (multiple CNFs). EMCO does not have a "standard compliant" northbound API (e.g. ETSI VNFM or NFVO)
    • Seshu Kumar Mudiganti - Proposes a Service-Orchestration/Resource-Orchestration approach. EMCO can handle Helm charts deployment (=resource). SO will  handle the service level.
    • Lukasz Rajewski - We should compare the terminology between ONAP/EMCO/ETSI.
    • Srinivasa Addepalli - EMCO handles "composite applications" described by a Helm chart. It provides value by interconnecting  the components of the composite service, e.g. using ISTIO.
    • What will be the demarcation between ONAP and EMCO? Will EMCO handle an entire CNF? Each Helm chart separately? In EMCO, One application may have multiple micro services. ONAP has "services" consisting of "VF"s, That may have "VF modules". Each "VF module" is a Helm chart. 
    • Lukasz Rajewski - The main difference between ONAP and EMCO is that ONAP deploys each "VF module" (=Helm chart) separately, using an API call to multicloud. We need to find a way to preserve this approach, making multiple API calls to EMCO.
    • First step for integration - ONAP will call EMCO for each "VF module".  This will not take full advantage of EMCO's capabilities, but will only serve as a first step toward deeper integration. CNF adapter in SO will be the integration point. Multicloud will not be used for this integration.
    • Future steps for integration - Have EMCO handle an entire VF as one composite application.

December 7th, 2021 at 2pm UTC

December 14th, 2021 at 2pm UTC

  • MEETING WAS CANCELED - low attendance
  • Finalize new landing pageDecember 14th, 2021 at 2pm UTC

Action Items (Closed in 2021)

  • (Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed)) / Marian Darula / Byung-Woo Jun : Nokia and Ericsson share an alternative (Common CNF Packaging) to what was proposed by Fernando Oliveira , Byung-Woo Jun
  • (All) Try to identify where we are on the CNCF Trail Journey - Needs clarification to comment, need to dig into the details of the actual ask.
  • (All): Build an ONAP proposition value to collaborate with XGVela Community
  • (Timo): Ask the Nokia team to present preview material on 1/26
  • (Catherine): Contact Policy/DCAE/AAI/SO PTLs to attend January 26th CNF Task Force call to review Satoshi FujiiCNF Closed Loop proposal
  • (Catherine): Send Calendar invite - every Tuesday @2pm UTC
  • (Catherine): Reconnect with the CNF sub-Task force: Modeling/AAI (Andy Mayer) and ETSI (Byung-Woo Jun and Fernando Oliveira ) to understand their 2021 goals on January 19th 
  • (Kenny): Follow up with EUAG in order to determine if any particular CNF reqs (or 2021 ONAP requirements including an update to the ONAP TSC)
  • (Seshu/Lukasz): Invite EMCO representatives
  • (Olivier): Organise a call with Trevor Lovettand any interested CNF team members to determine how ONAP could contribute to the OVP 2021 activities
  • (Ranny): Post the topic for the event
  • (Catherine) Check with Olivier Smithif we can postpone OVP/ONAP discussion to another week so CNF PDN Gateway discussions can be scheduled on  March 2nd, 2021
  • (Victor Morales/ Ranny Haiby): Setup additional follow-ups about CNF PDN Gateway
  • (Timo/Catherine): Promote 2021 goals from OVP program and collect any particular requirement through ONAP Requirement and TSC meetings
  • (Kenny): Contact EUAG about any CNF badging requirement (OVP)
  • (Seshu): Check if Former user (Deleted) , Lei Huang (Unlicensed) , Yan Yang can join March 9th, 2021 to discuss about OVP/ONAP & VNFSDK
  • (Thinh): Share the ETSI event link when it will be available
  • (Seshu): Questions for XGVela

It would be great to highlight more clearly the purpose of XGVela as a platform to build CNFs and get feedback from 3rd party vendors, who are today already creating CNFS for carriers, to assess the value proposition

After the CNF is created via XGVela – can we then deploy the CNF on any Cloud environment without using XGVela at run-time?

If we need XGVela then have we performed an analysis to demonstrate the value proposition vs K8S and its ecosystem?

Build a slide to highlight how XGVela (i.e. create  CNF) is complementary to ONAP (onboard CNF/orchestrate CNF, etc.) and how it will fit to the CNCF Landscape

  • cl664y@att.comFollow-up with the Modeling Subcommittee about yan yanrequest
  • @Thin to upload presentation from May 6th call
  • Kenny Paul - Reach out to FB to meet us on May 12th, 2021 (ONAP For Enterprise Task Force) - request made to LF PM - just checked no name yet.
  • cl664y@att.com: Introduce Amy Zwarico to Anuket, CNCF and OVP PH2 Communities and share SECCOM Container Logging specs 
  • (ALL): Provide feedback regarding Thin's proposal presented on May 6th, 2021
  • (Andy Mayer , Hui Deng ) Follow up regarding Modeling team about CVC request - Re: Request from CVC 
  • Kamel Idir - Will repeat onboarding with Honolulu (once he has the lab resources) and will report back 
  • (Byung-Woo Jun: Bring the discussions to the ONAP Architecture Subcommittee about SO/SDNC role etc (see notes from 4/29)
  • Ranny Haiby - Create a first draft of the "ONAP cloud-native" messaging slide and share with the Taskforce.
  • Ranny Haiby , Byung-Woo Jun , Timo Perala , Seshu Kumar Mudiganti  to discuss the enhancement of our ONAP Cloud Native Vision/Roadmap, this with Architecture, Requirement & MAC subcommittees
  • Brandon Wick- will collect additional information about the ONES event (virtual, F2F present, etc.)
  • cl664y@att.com: Plan CNF Task Force readout with the ONAP TSC
  • Lukasz Rajewski - Ask Orange colleagues to present EMCO↔Multicloud comparison
  • (All) Feel free to provide feedback about ASD packaging (Orchestration Scenarios)
  • (Modeling/Requirements): Need to determine what ETSI CNF package solution we want to move forward (Fernando Oliveira, Byung-Woo Jun vs Thinh Nguyenphu (Unlicensed))
  • (Olivier): Check with CNCF if any cross-meeting with ONAP could be scheduled 
  • (All): Collect feedback about our current CNF onboarding capabilities from 3rd party vendors
  • Try to locate missing meeting recordings (Sept 30th & Oct 14th, 2021) - cl664y@att.com 
  • Lukasz Rajewski - Follow up with Seshu to plan EMCO  integration