BRIDGE: https://zoom.us/j/661303200?pwd=TFdRd0c2MTJUem8xa252UGJHTE1Mdz09

Passcode: 209247

We will start our meetings by mentioning the project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.

Attendance is taken purely upon #info in Zoom Chat 

Zoom Chat Log 

05:57:25 From  Fred Oliveira  to  Everyone:
    #info Fred Oliveira, Self
05:59:56 From  Dong Wang (China Telecom)  to  Everyone:
    #info Dong Wang, China Telecom
06:00:11 From  bin.yang@windriver.com  to  Everyone:
    #info Bin Yang, Wind River
06:00:12 From  Ranny HAIBY (Samsung)  to  Everyone:
    #info Ranny Haiby, Samsung
06:00:19 From  Andreas GEISSLER (DT)  to  Everyone:
    #info Andreas Geissler, DT
06:00:26 From  Yuanhong  to  Everyone:
    #info Yuanhong Deng, China Mobile
06:01:17 From  Catherine Lefevre  to  Everyone:
    £Info Catherine LEFEVRE, ATT
06:01:32 From  N.K. Shankaranarayanan  to  Everyone:
    #info N.K.Shankar, STL
06:01:47 From  Bruno Sakoto  to  Everyone:
    #info Bruno Sakoto, Bell Canada
06:02:11 From  Eric Debeau  to  Everyone:
    #info Eric Debeau, Orange
06:02:15 From  Timo Perala (Nokia)  to  Everyone:
    #info Timo Perala, Nokia
06:03:52 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    #info Magnus Buhrgard (Ericsson)
06:04:37 From  Sai Seshu  to  Everyone:
    #info Seshu, huawei
06:09:05 From  Kevin Sandi (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    Sorry guys I couldn’t unmute myself, zoom is not for working properly
06:09:22 From  Kevin Sandi (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    I don’t have anything to add regarding nexus3, everything looks good from my side
06:12:08 From  Kenny PAUL (LFN)  to  Everyone:
    email link: https://lists.onap.org/g/onap-modelingsub/topic/88721915#906
06:33:31 From  Fred Oliveira  to  Everyone:
    RH
06:41:19 From  Magnus Buhrgard  to  Everyone:
    RH
06:49:53 From  Fred Oliveira  to  Everyone:
    From my understanding, approval from the modeling committee is not required to proceed with a POC.
06:50:29 From  Catherine Lefevre  to  Everyone:
    Thanks Fred the clarification
06:50:47 From  Thinh NGUYENPHU  to  Everyone:
    rh
06:53:30 From  Thinh NGUYENPHU  to  Everyone:
    LH
07:01:02 From  Fred Oliveira  to  Everyone:
    FYI: Current ETSI SOL001 supports CNFs.
07:03:54 From  Thinh NGUYENPHU  to  Everyone:
    rh
07:24:18 From  Byung-Woo Jun (Ericsson)  to  Everyone:
    I need to drop. Thanks.
07:24:55 From  Marian Darula  to  Everyone:
    ASD presentation at LFN DDF: https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/2022-01-12+-+ONAP%3A+Application+Service+Descriptor+%28ASD%29+for+K8s+NFs
07:25:32 From  Marian Darula  to  Everyone:
    and ASD POC proposal: https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/2022-01-12+-+ONAP%3A+ASD+and+Application+Onboarding+and+LCM+Orchestration
07:25:46 From  Marian Darula  to  Everyone:
    pls copy these link the MoM
07:31:06 From  Catherine Lefevre  to  Everyone:
    Thanks Marian - added to the TSC Mom

Zoom auto-transcript service - These are often translated incorrectly and can be misleading. They are NOT Authoritative!   Information as to why .
They are included here as a time stamp cross-reference for the recording only!  The notes above this line and the actual recordings are authoritative. 

06:02:18 Thank you, Eric thank chemo.
06:02:22 Thank you, Eric thank Timo okay as y'all probably just got the little notice, recording has been enabled transcript is on.
06:02:36 And if you're coming down on the phone line you can use star six to mute if send me a private chat message.
06:02:43 I'll happily cut and paste that into the minutes.
06:02:48 And if my screen will move forward. There we go.
06:02:53 We'll cover our anti trust policy notice this policy is important, and we've got multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, participating in these meetings.
06:03:04 Please review it. If you have any questions please contact your company's legal counsel, members of the elf may also contact Andrew after growth at the firm gives up Grove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the Linux Foundation.
06:03:26 That's the wrong window.
06:03:33 That's the right window.
06:03:39 David sent out the update to the list.
06:03:44 The my empty conditions have been met. The next is m three on the third of March.
06:03:52 We're looking at the 17th for symbol, maintenance,
06:04:00 got us, our normal range spot
06:04:05 discussion of Azure discussion of three GPPDCAE and
06:04:16 projects that need to be moved to
06:04:21 and maintained discussion about application service descriptor.
06:04:34 Tomas we've got the
06:04:39 item that we brought forward on the documentation is this still something that we need to discuss with the TASC or is, is the topic in in your perspective closed out unless I do not receive any hint, what can be improved.
06:04:59 So maybe we can reach out to me and saying what is missing and other people, of course, also.
06:05:08 Okay.
06:05:10 Thank you, sir.
06:05:14 discussion about SPC representative.
06:05:21 Some Task Force issues and then normal housekeeping.
06:05:26 Anything else that anyone would like to add.
06:05:32 Okay, I'm Catherine, any particular or you'd like to proceed in.
06:05:42 No, I think we can follow the flow.
06:05:46 Yeah, let's see we can follow the show. Okay, thank you.
06:05:51 David you send out your weekly email.
06:05:55 Anything that wasn't covered in that that you want to mention.
06:05:59 Now, unless there any questions.
06:06:06 Either the only thing I know, I just want to be sure we're on the same page is concern is concerning the Istanbul I know we got to get the date of the 17.
06:06:20 But let's be clear, if we don't have the testing completed and the ladies nude ready.
06:06:28 It will slip, day by day because it's the mandatory material that we need to ensure that the maintenance release is okay.
06:06:40 And I guess it's understood by everybody.
06:06:43 Hope.
06:06:53 Okay,
06:07:00 so then moving on to real Inge and following up on the next three instability.
06:07:06 Has that been working okay for everyone.
06:07:22 Okay, take that as an affirmative.
06:07:27 So the tickets associated with that, we'll close it out on Monday.
06:07:35 If we don't hear anything back.
06:07:39 Um.
06:07:44 Any,
06:07:44 any specific tickets or migration issues coming up.
06:07:54 Now from our side. Kenny, I'm Kevin, anything you want to
06:08:06 Kevin if you said anything you're muted.
06:08:13 Oh, Jessica. I have some comments which are pending for review from a management maybe you can have a look at them once we can talk offline. We can talk yeah yeah sure I believe I did so I did not assemble.
06:08:30 If I'm not mistaken, they were failing. Ci or the person No,
06:08:36 no, actually, the failure was something which I won't discuss with you I thought you will actually have it. I even posted a question on that, but for the line which is actually successful also was not much, if I remember, we can talk a bit of things.
06:08:50 Thank you. Yeah, I can take a look.
06:09:20 Okay.
06:09:26 So okay thank thank you, Kevin I see your note.
06:09:31 So moving on, then
06:09:35 account.
06:09:36 So, we touched on this.
06:09:40 Was it last week or the week before I don't recall when.
06:09:46 But, do, do we have a scope for
06:09:53 the size of what would be needed here.
06:10:00 No, no, sorry I didn't prepare to that yet. I will share it with you.
06:10:05 Yeah, as soon as possible. Okay.
06:10:08 Yeah.
06:10:25 Cool.
06:10:28 Okay, I'm moving on, then.
06:10:37 3g pp vest spec.
06:10:45 So there was an email
06:10:55 that Catherine sent out
06:10:55 on this bum bum bum bum bum.
06:11:12 down.
06:11:15 So just just to wake up, I think, I think based on the feedback and the exchange with Sue.
06:11:22 We are going in the right direction. Because of you know we have an issue concerning the vest specification. And we wanted to consolidate all the specification under the modeling.
06:11:34 So there have been some exchange between myself. I also clarify because my thing with from the OC community was confusing the DC vs collector micro services.
06:11:48 The DC invest collective micro services will remain with DC. We are only talking about the specification.
06:11:57 And I'm just about to reply to the, to the main from glue. I believe that the modeling BTL can also own this repository, purely we are not aware, and that's why I was inviting Magnus and vj, we are not aware of any particular request from TGPB.
06:12:20 We don't think the specification from the west.
06:12:26 My change soon, except if somebody any of you, somebody from the community would like to do an announcement, but we expect the person to submit the code change the specification change.
06:12:39 And then it will be up to the modeling team to decide if yes or no, they are, they are online of that so Magnus I know you are all representative. In addition to your Tsu whole for CPP and of years.
06:12:59 configuration. So I hope I have been sharing the right information to the motoring team, but based on what I see. I think that the monitor team step up and they are open to help us in the high direction.
06:13:13 I think it's it's like this.
06:13:17 Even if we, if we change this if we do it and it changes to the best specification that will not be picked up by three DPP.
06:13:27 What they have announced that they have sort of a, a, at one point in time they picked a specification from phone up and they're referencing that, then they have worked with sort of describing that themselves and and worked it into their, their specifications,
06:13:45 but they haven't come back with any requests to changes, and they will not sort of take a new reference.
06:13:53 Even if we improve it, or clarify or do anything with that.
06:14:03 That's the, the message I get from from the PPP.
06:14:08 So if I chair.
06:14:16 Hello comment on this.
06:14:17 Yes, Shanker.
06:14:19 And everyone, this is, this topic is actually very timely. This has been discussed, there was a discussion yesterday on the every Wednesday, there is a policy harmonization call.
06:14:33 And so these messages are used in both in own app and Alessi.
06:14:38 So there was a discussion I think there is at least one convergence away out of this puzzle is, There is a rest domain in the header, and that is that when it's for this call standard define SD and the standard defined domain then there is a way to, to,
06:14:57 to specify a schema and then have some flexibility and how we can help the payload formats.
06:15:06 And I think that isn't consensus it's also there in Oregon, one specific specifications, to try to use stick to that standard defined domain.
06:15:17 That's one way. I think that's where the communities, is there is some consensus that that's a way out of, to, to keep everything aligned and Magnus I would like to follow up with you offline.
06:15:30 There was some concerns also about copyright issues that came up before as to if we have sample.
06:15:39 That's messages that we use in our use cases and PCs and demos, and how what is the best way to to leverage and refer back to GDP.
06:15:52 So I don't have any more details at this point but the follow up.
06:15:56 Yeah, please. Please Tim
06:16:01 and Catherine and I think the fact that this everything else makes sense that someone is keeping track of the model and we don't want to disappoint if any other changes are necessary.
06:16:17 Thank you so much again for your feedback.
06:16:20 As I said, the our couple of items that there is a collection of all the project itself, that we need to keep going the specification is one of them two months ago we were discussing about natural slicing so that's the type of things we can do inside
06:16:38 our activities. After five years because we realize that whole industry is going. Paul carriers vendors drug manufacturer, as no using software defined network, but are still Kush are things that we cannot give up and I'm so happy.
06:16:56 If there is any happened on that day from the motoring team, please pass again. My really sincere thanks to this group because we needed an ownership, and we find this ownership for this specification within the modeling team, so that that's really great.
06:17:13 Thank you so much.
06:17:21 Okay, so that's the.
06:17:27 That is the structural alignment within own app
06:17:34 is there. Now technically Is there any activities that need to take place.
06:17:44 Currently, yeah, no, no, go ahead.
06:17:46 There, too.
06:17:49 Technically, now that we have an agreement, there are two way, and I'm open to whatever the modeling team wants to do. Either we maintain that the best thing is that we transfer the scope of the debate under the Model Model integrity to me, because I
06:18:04 know at least we know where it is. If it is a major issue for most guilty and Jenkins whatever we can leave these people, active, and I've gave all the rest of the VNF requirement but I want the modeling team to manage that, as they want.
06:18:24 And luckily, I think based on the exchange. We need to paste and copy on the code to give it this repository so we need to follow up offline. And again, I think we have accomplished a major agreement.
06:18:41 Now we need to look at the technicality do so. So Jessica we might need to move I hope we will not lose a story. If we lose we lose. But we, we might need to transfer this repository.
06:18:59 And I need probably to name it in this email on the modeling teams.
06:19:19 I don't know if anybody has other thinking clarification or suggestion, I'm adding the labels that need to be discuss how the only thing is that we have to keep the exact same reference.
06:19:24 We cannot change any the reference we gave has to be exactly the same. So, we cannot put in a new path or anything.
06:19:40 Ah,
06:19:40 So maybe the best is to keep the people where it is. And then it means we need to have the modeling team committed contributors to these people. So that's why I put investigator we can move existing people.
06:19:56 And I put the name of the repository that we're discussing now.
06:20:03 So maybe the only way, depending on what Jessica will tell us is to leave it as it is and add new heights and gone, of the competitors.
06:20:32 People who have heightened content or modeling need to have also a little discrepancy
06:20:26 there, so the requisite during question is the BNFRQTS requirements is it
06:20:33 is that in question. Okay, it can we add also how the desired outcome. Oh, if we move it to modeling.
06:20:43 How we will look like. basically.
06:20:48 Well, so we we've got an operational aspect here, based upon published published agreements that we have with three, three GPP that Magnus just brought up in terms of the path to those documents needs to remain the same.
06:21:11 So if we move it.
06:21:15 Then the path is is different. All of the documentation is all of the reference points that three GPP has than or.
06:21:23 Yes, they will.
06:21:24 So this actually brings up a larger question down the road that, not to dig down into now but if we move to get lab then what.
06:21:38 But we'll tackle that beast later on.
06:21:43 So I think that in the context of meeting to maintain the search path, the URLs however anyone would get to this documentation static because it's referenced in specifications.
06:22:03 I think that we need to lead to the repo where it is.
06:22:07 Yeah that's given that is the best thing to do.
06:22:14 You can can read the document and then I, I, we need to answer to do as well.
06:22:31 Ok.
06:22:35 Ok so
06:22:47 the current competitors for the modeling project will be added to
06:23:05 the DNS requirements.
06:23:12 repo.
06:23:18 We have agreement from that on the TLC.
06:23:23 Okay, I'll mark it as such.
06:23:28 And this is all self serve so the detail or any of the developers can continue to change and I can review.
06:23:38 Okay.
06:24:23 please send a note to glue to inform about this limitation and again, if I don't hide correctly things.
06:24:32 Feel free to add comments, but I'm trying to keep glue info online as well.
06:24:41 And what we decided is that we cannot move the, the hippo. Your responsibility. It's fine, it's great because we have the modeling stepping up. But we cannot move these people, due to the reason raised by my goodness.
06:24:57 But what will we do we love the modeling committed commuters having access to this repository as well. And it's the
06:25:09 corpsman branches Yes That's the one. Yeah. So then, all other.
06:25:15 All other VNF requirements repose are then to be moved to read only.
06:25:22 Yes. That's my understanding, yeah.
06:25:25 Okay.
06:25:55 Know About currently.
06:26:05 Okie doke.
06:26:11 Anything else on this topic.
06:26:20 Yeah, good for now. Okay, thank you everyone.
06:26:24 Okay so moving on.
06:26:26 ASD who would like to drive this and do you want to share or do you want me to share.
06:26:32 If I share I can't take minutes.
06:26:35 This is Magnus, I will present that together with Timo. Okay.
06:26:42 and I would like you to share.
06:26:45 Okay.
06:26:46 Please.
06:26:48 So somebody else will need to make sure that the notes are being taken.
06:26:55 But hang on.
06:27:07 There you go. See you. Yes. So here's some presentation from from Naka marathon.
06:27:13 The application service descriptor is a proposal from the CNS Task Force.
06:27:20 And it has been presented here before in the entity See, it's also being reviewed in the architecture sub committee and the requirement subcommittee.
06:27:33 And so it's a well known concept but I will do a short recap just to, to show you on the next slide. One slider here on what this is the ASD concept.
06:27:45 So, it's a simplified way to model and package cloud native network functions as an alternative to other models like the Etsy NFP so series one or Kubernetes cod's.
06:28:01 The proposal originated and was given from the own up see enough task force as a cloud native way of modeling and packaging of CNS. So the proposal consists of a collection of cloud native deployment items.
06:28:20 For instance Helm charts and slim descriptor complimenting Helm charts.
06:28:26 So, additional information, which cannot be conveyed via deployment items.
06:28:33 So that could be external network connections or minimal turnover versions, etc.
06:28:41 The status of this work is.
06:28:44 There are some links here to the a steam information model the HD data model package format, as defined in, you know, and the HD proof of concept defined for the first reference implementation in an internet based infrastructure.
06:29:05 And then there are resources committed for the spark implementation in the Jakarta Time, time frame from from Erickson.
06:29:15 And the proof of concepts is, of course, as it says to prove to look at the concept, but it can also be seen as kind of a pre study to how you best implement ASD in the architecture.
06:29:32 The benefits are cloud native way to the model, and package CNF complementing in and integrating well with the CNC f solutions and tooling.
06:29:45 It gives increased efficiency by avoiding the cumbersome mapping of the sci fi, so to see one model to to native Kubernetes. So it isn't. It's an alternative to the sci fi so seriously one is less error prone.
06:30:05 So tell us a lot of benefits there doesn't require complex synchronization of data, and so on.
06:30:17 So, the HD is a good fit for implementation in the system.
06:30:23 Maybe I should pause here while if there is someone who wants to ask or comment anything about this.
06:30:35 Just to make the bridge, Magnus, yes, I think that was also last week beyond then set also presented somewhere that will be accomplished. As a PLC. And we were inviting the owner community to join us right yes the same topics of the rich because last
06:31:00 week we, we provide a lizard of the CNS Task Force, and it was really a call to the community, or do a lot of a lot of company I will not say that but some companies already step up to demonstrate what has been driven and of course by fed and also beyond.
06:31:20 So I want to be sure that people see the connect the dots to the presentation made by Clinton young last week, and what you are sharing today.
06:31:28 Thank you.
06:31:29 Thanks Catherine. Also, the SD concept was presented in in the development and testing forum.
06:31:40 Last month.
06:31:43 Um, so, then I'll come to the issue if we go to the next slide.
06:31:50 So it's about the ASD model approval.
06:31:54 So it was presented and in the modeling subcommittee, and there was a poll on the approving the Information Modeling and and packaging specifications.
06:32:11 And there were three boats cast it to yes and no one no.
06:32:15 So the, the, no reason. There was of course a recent provided for the know, stating the requirements to align with the s&p. So, series one.
06:32:32 As far as we could see there was not any technical objection from the mod calm regarding the ASD proposal.
06:32:49 It was this connection to to Etsy.
06:32:43 And we're a bit puzzled by that because the ASD was actually introduced them as an alternative to Etsy and the fee, so seriously one. The NFP.
06:32:54 And we see that there's no alignment is clickable. It's on the contrary, we don't want to align.
06:33:02 Since it's an alternative.
06:33:05 So, in order to to to proceed with the ASD implementation and own up we need to put a speck in clean state.
06:33:15 And that is sort of what the approval in the modeling subcommittee is all about.
06:33:20 So, we, we asked you to own up TC to initiate the approval of this in some form.
06:33:29 So that's the end of my presentation.
06:33:35 I want to reformulate the US so I believe you don't see to approve the QC because I mean everybody could do a few seeable anything.
06:33:57 No, you as the to see, to approve the ASD modern that you're not committee have been working on. Finally, the task force is really the implementation Modelo, It is fine.
06:34:02 Yeah it is this to,
06:34:07 to put the safety model in in a clean state. So, I was intentionally not sort of the wording is this a bit difficult here because it's.
06:34:24 I mean, own up to you see can make a
06:34:28 decision based on recommendation from the modeling subcommittee.
06:34:35 or it can bring back the, the issue to the modeling subcommittee. There were various ways we can, we can do this what we're saying here is that this is sort of hindering us from moving forward with the, with ASD.
06:35:07 up to anyone to suggest the POC, but when we are in this situation where we don't have the clean state label. It makes it difficult to move forward.
06:35:10 Many and if I, if I may. Yeah, Magnus, please. Okay, go get Cassidy and there are two parts to one is to inflammation and modeling part, which is official requirement, which is requirement 993.
06:35:30 So, then this is after this, we have the appeal CG step you can start any way but we want to put this ASD information model data model. And then for the format packaging format in our in approval in on it during to Jakarta, because this is a milestone.
06:35:44 We have to have it, not just for PRC, but after this. We are in a print approach all in the community and other community for this. That's why this model, not just PLC modeling and the information that's important to be approval to, we go next step.
06:36:02 That's why, Magnus mentioning here. Okay, that's my input.
06:36:07 Thank you.
06:36:09 So, so I want to be sure that everybody is understanding what we are doing. So, if the TASC up the go.
06:36:19 How can we, and maybe the it's a question for Fred with for me my Etsy goo with beyond. If we go in this direction Fred and somehow beyond. How can he be continued with Etsy and so on because we have been really advocate, about the sort of one or 275
06:36:38 and so on. So, is it also like we did with the TTP. Can we go back to Etsy and say look we demonstrate that our model is working and we can change the specification, or are we really creating to past for the industry.
06:36:56 So, let me tell you we had here, Fred going to he's going to say his own opinion but in my opinion this is the mapping.
06:37:17 Okay. In, especially so so we have our original econ pass and se pass and then, and also hybrid for CNN for work. And then also we are adding as the so we're not replacing we're overriding some other so Sc.
06:37:37 We walked for as an SEO alignment. We work up to VNF. So we did it we have some struggle but some area but we may do some, we support basic operations, but that's for VNF, and when we come to CNN, we little project and then asking about the question about
06:37:45 about SEVNFT, for CNN, so I mean they have a rich set, but we so many redundant information, because in before VNFT, the descriptor is, you know, great, but in CNS there's Helen chat and other cloud native descriptors so that's kind of we feel we described
06:38:02 some information in the helm chart, and also SEVNFT for CNN, we described the similar information there so that's why Magnus mentioned. Okay, once you to information coming in one for cloud native Helm chart.
06:38:26 One is to Vienna FDC, then we have to synchronize because it is possible. Someone defined this way, but, you know, tell him to define this way. That's why we try to eliminate or minimize the influence that's why we delegate the older cloud native definition
06:38:34 to have them chat. And then, as these. On top of that, they have something to manage to help them chart and then provide injection input parameter or some network in the parameter and then always overriding pyramidal configuration we defined ASD.
06:38:50 But most delegation delegating to him today so we try to do that so here.
06:38:56 Stay there. And for CNN, someone pick up from there. And then ASD, we find, and beneficial on the items from ASD concept so we tried to take another alternative paths this YSCASD is a kind of an alternate path, each other, but not just overriding each
06:39:17 other. That's why we said, you know, we align with the SE from the beginning we never tried to align with the SEC tester are the boss of the AFC that's why we, you know, and, in short, in on a sec alignment will be there.
06:39:32 And then we are adding additional as default.
06:39:35 So you know that we have to find out which one is the best way. So then we can prove this is a good way to prove. Good way to handle sienna. That's my input, maybe Fred FC so opinion to.
06:39:49 Sure, thought that the couple of contributions. So, just from a result of the modeling discussion we had on this past Monday. I think the concern was that there was a again this kind of duplicity of models, and the concern or, I think, the request that
06:40:14 was made was that the
06:40:18 the ASD proposals be brought to a broader Standards Committee.
06:40:24 One of them, potentially being an Etsy.
06:40:28 Could be others as well.
06:40:31 But that there was no requirement, I guess in the context of the modeling committee or own app in general. That would prohibit the P OC from proceeding it without any approval from the modeling group.
06:40:50 I think there's a proposal to have a, a joint workshop between the own app. As the proposal team, and Etsy, believe at the towards the end of the couple of days of being proposed.
06:41:11 And at that point the proposal would be more advertise or more discussed further discussed with Etsy.
06:41:24 Members, and some attempt was made to reconcile any issues and either modify the proposals, better your Etsy standards that are currently being published to include some PhD proposals, or adopt some of the ASD.
06:41:43 As an alternative.
06:41:47 So, I mean, this last bullet, I think is actually not accurate.
06:41:52 There's nothing of the, the objections that will be as the invitation from proceeding, as it's currently defined.
06:42:05 Otherwise, I would look forward to some discussion of the AC proposal, but the Etsy and there are other standards organizations.
06:42:21 Maybe I can step in, is that, as it is formulated now and we made the decision in own up, depending on opinion of Etsy NFP regarding the idea of ASD, which of course will probably be will be dismissed because it has a standard, which belief in it, and
06:42:45 probably will not be so much interested in that to have a fork in here. So, ASD was invented, as an alternative to say NFC South 001 because we have seen shortcomings which has been also channelized here in this meeting.
06:43:01 So it's really strange to us that we in on up, are making the tendency on third standardization body, which probably doesn't have interest to really push the ASD to accommodate this innovative concept in old up.
06:43:22 So this is what is a little bit irritating us. And when it comes to the proof of concept of course we can do, we can invest Exxon is ready to finance the development of proof of concept, but then be, we will do the proof of concept we are pretty confident
06:43:40 it will work. But then we will be in state, zero again. So this question will be again on the agenda and then we invested money. And then we are running in the risk that as the the on appeal dismiss the A is the concept, and we invested money unnecessarily.
06:44:00 So this is what we really asked for is if we want to proceed with proof of concept, we want to have coverage from on up, and that it will be done in the way that the technical maturity of the concept is put in clean state so that we can rely on it and
06:44:21 we can do the development accordingly. I think that's the statement here and that is why we brought it to own up the SEC, so that we can standpoint here, and we will not do dependent ourselves from third party.
06:44:37 Standardization but it because at CNN is one of them. There are others so we can bring it to whatever standardization body. But should we do that.
06:44:49 So just a little bit what has been discussed, I think, there, there is a possibility to validate the to sue the ASD cpvc, the company you are willing to demonstrate that implementation is right, the modeling if I read again they've been tabled two years
06:45:10 to somehow this report and one No, even understand so somehow the recommendation of the modeling team is a yes, even if there is a know there are two years, and now we have the request and the TLC to approve or not these type of implementation, and why
06:45:28 not discussing, I don't know if you are part of the owner pondering this call list. There is really a willingness on the Etsy organization to ever join workshop with us so it's also an opportunity to it as well.
06:45:47 So, we are trying to recap the key points, and the one to value.
06:46:00 I mean, again, it's for me beyond and Fred are really my point of difference in the domain without most people like you my opinion as what a man is. So based on all these points, you get the feedback from the expert you have a yes from the modeling team
06:46:08 team PLC is funded all will be done so anything else before we vote, one
06:46:17 comment that the request from the modeling team was basically that there was lots of discussion, no agreement, and that the modeling team asked for was asked to basically go away and come back next week and for for the discussion.
06:46:41 So no approval from the modeling team at the moment, just a
06:46:49 a request for further discussion.
06:46:52 Now one one comment. When the one common thread the basically the postponed one week but I don't think the changing position. Meanwhile, are they creating some kind of workshop between the owner, his team and se, but this is the issue.
06:47:06 You mentioned about people so you can you know they can say you can go here to PRC. The issue is, they want to set set up the workshop and 40 conservative ASD and sec.
06:47:17 Okay, so this module is not stable. We need a stable model to create PLC for STC onboarding, we cannot say you cannot wait, there's some some going on in the sec and the day mixing something with ASD that we don't know when it's gonna happen so PLC to
06:47:35 So POC to start, we need to stable model. And then, then only a sec team already looking into it, as the spec, then based on spec they are designed the STC onboarding based on that we designed the orchestration in so as plugin.
06:47:52 And we based on that we designed for distribution, we cannot say, you can start the POC but we are still working with the reconsolidation between sem if What if SSL or you have to take se, and we add in small Peter obsessive ASE, then the whole concept
06:48:07 with the PRC concept. The crash, because of the model onboarding Martinez, is not going to work, and distribution not going to work. And orchestration not going to be based on as.
06:48:18 That's why we are asking, we need to clean stable modeling approved by owner to stop, otherwise eg to stay at start to see what doing what then, I don't know, maybe to add, so we are not against to present the Asda the Etsy NFP forum.
06:48:37 So we are even eager to do that, but we want to decouple the activities what we do and decisions what we do in on up from the internal Etsy NFP discussion.
06:48:51 Because we know from the already that there will be resistance to adapt as the because ASD is not created inside the Etsy NFP and has a different philosophy, its cloud native, it's using cloud native artifacts, and it's not following the structure of
06:49:14 Etsy NFP so then it's very clear that this is not the very at the NFP like approach.
06:49:24 But we are more than willing to present it to collect comments, maybe that will improve even, somehow, the, the ASD proposal, but we want to decouple the decision in our interaction with Etsy and it sounds like maybe that you didn't ask the right question
06:49:49 and this is why you got the wrong answer. I mean, it sounds like whoever objected this felt that the a is these attempting to replace the xe modeling, where as according to your explanation, you are proposing an alternative.
06:50:06 So, if it's an alternative I don't see how anybody can reject it, because not everything you know enough to my speed compliant, it's a narrow it has always been alternative approaches, and we were accommodating for that as well so I'm sensing right maybe
06:50:24 there was a misunderstanding, with us and that's why you got the wrong answer. Okay, so maybe we haven't been completely clear in the description for ASD on the wiki page.
06:50:36 This is explicitly stated, this is explicitly stated in the requirement nine and three that we are working for alternative solution.
06:50:45 So we are not following the DNC NFL 001. So therefore, the, the request from the modeling subcommittee to align with the NFL 001 is strange. And it's, again, it's the requirements we have had.
06:51:04 So therefore we came here for, for on a PC to take standpoint, and make possible that we can continue with our work.
06:51:15 Because, if you could.
06:51:17 Okay, go ahead.
06:51:19 Sorry I'm saying that I don't see why there is a reason for it you see to intervene here I mean, it sounds like there has been a misunderstanding and you're kind of alluding to that because you're stating that the answer doesn't make sense and I know
06:51:33 kind of feeling that it's maybe I'm misunderstanding so why not clear the reason the sending in the modeling subcommittee why yeah yeah we tried it now so we have a one a one hour discussion where we put all this documentation on the table, but my feeling
06:51:49 maybe other chemical compliment is that it was not taken our argumentation so it was continued, and also the males afterwards they had been stating, we make the decision dependent on how the workshop with Etsy NFP will result.
06:52:08 So, that okay so I'm trying to formulate what you are actually wanting to see to decide, or to agree here so can we frame it as the TC recommends to the modeling subcommittee to accommodate for to alternative CNS packaging approaches or does that capture
06:52:27 what you're looking for.
06:52:29 Yeah, I think that would be good.
06:52:33 And I think also that the, we would like to ask the modeling subcommittee to only take sort of the. Yeah, look at the model if it holds water not if it's sort of aligned with anything at to anything outside.
06:52:54 Yeah, I think the most demo here I kind of want to echo what Michael said here, I think we have had kind of meeting of the requirement itself if it makes sense.
06:53:09 Already, long time ago. It's been approved and, as we all know, in the TTC It is part of the charter requirements. So, it is, it has been on the table.
06:53:21 Long time preparing for Jakarta that this modeling work will take place. So from that point of view, also I think it would be just the right thing for the modeling subcommittee to evaluate the model itself, if it's appropriate or if it needs some improvements,
06:53:43 based on the discussion last Monday. We didn't really hear any arguments that it should, should improve or something is wrong there.
06:53:54 I think that that's what what the kind of the objective of the, of the modeling team discussion, should be at least as far as I understand it looks like them wants to chime in as well.
06:54:09 No I lower my hand I think, Marcus, and to clarify.
06:54:17 Thank you.
06:54:26 T new will help us because you are already purpose on divorce, let's see. So, you will help us also to, to connect the dots right because that was also thanks to you that we have this workshop, I believe, so I remain convinced that this workshop is very
06:54:41 important.
06:54:43 Please, we are sharing.
06:54:46 The we are all we are thinking.
06:54:49 So that's for me a must have to participate to the drone workshop.
06:54:55 Now, I was putting some notes, I don't want to overload anything which has, which is happening with the modeling team so we need to find an alignment.
06:55:04 But I also tend to agree, we cannot stop, a PLC because of PLC, it's the way to learn. If they are their motive is walking or not.
06:55:14 So as a next step.
06:55:18 I'm still not sure what you expect from the piece to see to vote but I think one participate to the john was shot to pursue the jack FWC to confirm or not that he is working or not, maybe I'm doing, I'm saying twice and then find an agreement with the
06:55:36 mother the team based on the result of the things.
06:55:40 Yeah, so we disagree because, because I already cites several times that we can't invest the money company money and then we will be in the same situation as we are today.
06:55:56 So we have a, we have to have a clear indication from owner, that is supporting us in our initiative and that clear statement will be that this model is approved in the clean state it means that is technical maturity will be signed from owner, this is
06:56:17 what we request, if you don't have that, then we will most probably not continue with proof of concept.
06:56:27 and we will turn to other
06:56:30 open source and standardization bodies, where we probably will be more successful with this concept.
06:56:39 So if I, if I add one thing so for example, the requirement is done for ASD. So everyone reviewed and he was approved requirement wise. So we are in the process get the modeling so if the modeling team.
06:56:53 Raise issue the technical issue for example this is not you know proper, we want to add this attribute. We want to handle this way. That makes sense. There's the modeling team does not like, come back with se derisively consolidation consolation that's
06:57:08 not under good reason because from the beginning, as it is the alternative solution. So why do we have to bring the SEC to reconcile wait for long time for three or four months is not going to happen.
06:57:19 So this way. We this ASD particular spec is we want this alternative way, and the requirements done so the modeling thing to my view is technical review and if we have some problem we willing to change it, but not like, politically, we have to, you know,
06:57:36 align the SEC from the beginning, as it was not for that. There's some, I don't understand that part. So, if I can ask a question here.
06:57:49 If the TLC was to put approve and put the, the speck in a clean state.
06:57:59 However, that's been defined.
06:58:01 And we were to go to Etsy and Nancy says, No, not interested.
06:58:06 What impact does that have on the impact on the own app community. It sounds like from what I just heard. Okay, well we'll just go to a different standards body.
06:58:16 No no no we didn't say go to different standards body, we would be very happy to, to, to, to present and, and, and explain the ASD to to FC bits it's none of their business to say whether we are doing the right thing or not.
06:58:36 Right. We shouldn't give up give up that.
06:58:38 Okay, okay.
06:58:44 Yeah.
06:58:44 Yeah, I think we, I understand that azz just sort of shun to reset to to to define descriptor arm or nine is to keep analysts on Brian want to deploy from Santa Ana.
06:59:00 I seem to be the approach. But at the end of the day, I'm bit afraid that we will have three or four bus in on up to the price enough so we need to try to to convert Monday when we said see on a day to enforce its energy to get the competition wise it
06:59:21 wise it will be a big mess again ZUC.
06:59:25 I think we need.
06:59:27 But, and discussion should be done before the requirement was stated, or we will turn it now that you say that or not.
07:00:07 It's a revising the decision, and it will not push for alternative modeling and the packaging proposal for CNS that that could be the decision of owner, but that is no different from what was decided, previously because previous decision was that we should
06:59:57 involve cloud native modeling and packaging approach inside of the owner.
07:00:13 If, if so, Kenny's perspective, if we don't pursue a cloud native model own apps dead.
07:00:19 So that's my opinion I'll leave it there, I do have a procedural question. However, what constitutes quorum.
07:00:29 On the modeling subcommittee.
07:00:32 Because I'm looking at three votes.
07:00:36 And I cannot believe that there are only three people that vote on the modeling subcommittee.
07:00:42 So, I don't see how that's a blocker
07:00:53 was opposed so I mean it's registered three events.
07:01:01 How can okay so three votes, out of how many people that constitute quorum. On the modeling subcommittee.
07:01:08 I am sorry I don't need to know the procedures I thought that the model is subcommittee was an advisory to, it is a it is an advisory.
07:01:20 And I'm, I'm, I'm struggling, that a poll taken of an entire subcommittee where there are only three votes to in the affirmative.
07:01:35 And it is a pole. It's advisory.
07:01:47 I, I am not seeing anything procedurally that that that would constitute the need for a specific vote of the TASC, I understand the concern.
07:02:02 I totally understand the concern that resources are being invested.
07:02:08 And in terms of proving out something that we know there is a need for in the industry.
07:02:17 And the concern is ok so we prove that out but somehow then there's a decision that that says no, we aren't going to do this.
07:02:28 Certainly I don't understand why we would pin, our decision on a third party,
07:02:42 telling us whether whether we should proceed with it or not.
07:02:47 Right.
07:02:50 So I'm sharing my thoughts in a bit of a rambling fashion here.
07:02:59 But,
07:02:59 you know, ultimately the own app community is responsible for developing software for the telecommunications industry that addresses a set of problems.
07:03:14 It still is addressing a set of problems that so.
07:03:20 Yeah, go ahead.
07:03:21 So, so that's why I wanted to conclude and say, this the TASC feel comfortable to have a vote. And if we vote, we need to understand on what we need to vote, because it's clear for me.
07:03:35 We need to participate to the join workshop right if we can align the SU with what we do, it's fantastic.
07:03:43 There's so funny I don't see any issue to go through the PC because of you see it's part of our research and development. But I understand if we go through the PC.
07:03:54 And later on, it's not recognized, then it will be a big one counts. And that's why I was thinking if we can have an agreement on Don up with you're not modeling based on the PC reserved.
07:04:04 So it was the, the pass to move forward because they are not okay.
07:04:10 Then, there is no way to pass you but if so, can somebody formulate the route for the TC, If, if we feel we have all the answer to the question that we had in our mind.
07:04:25 I can cry, I think we should
07:04:30 ask the modeling subcommittee, to look at the fidelity of the code, disregarding any external
07:04:47 dependencies.
07:04:50 Standardization bodies, any external open source of standards or the pope or anyone to that we say, is this a valid model.
07:05:02 Technically,
07:05:05 because that's what I see is the clean clean state. It's been looked at by experts. And they say, This model is not aligned with that.
07:05:16 But it is technically valid.
07:05:22 I must say I feel kind of weird having this discussion without hearing from kind of the other side someone from the modeling subcommittee.
07:05:29 But it's, but having said that, I think, the modeling subcommittee has no authority to disqualify anything that is not standard aligned. And just as a reminder, we've done this in the past, even in the early days of on up we had two approaches for a vn
07:05:49 FM the VFC and the FC and, you know, we had very good debates about it and we decided to move forward with alternatives and let the maybe best approach win so I think we should continue doing that and continue, allowing an alternative, and not only commit
07:06:09 to the studio's way of doing things. I think that was part of the charter of own up to propose pragmatic approach to things and maybe, hoping to have cross pollination between stos and the open source, but again, there's not.
07:06:25 There is no mandate to stop anything in own up that is not as do align. So, I would object any attempt to stifle any initiative like that because it's on the line because that's our part of our goal here is to propose alternative approaches or more pragmatic
07:06:42 approach is hopefully, helping the SEOs align their specifications.
07:06:50 And then to add to that, see enough direct direct path that is another approach. Yeah.
07:06:58 My concern. So anyway we have to pass to their fathers you know deployment if we bring a new one. I'm a bit concerned about that.
07:07:06 I will always be tested on so on we manage a treat us. So, I agree with you.
07:07:16 Because, but
07:07:20 at the technical level what.
07:07:24 To be clear, I'm finding that we need to work for this crypto to cover CNET and it's very important for that.
07:07:33 But no, I think we need to clearly understand what he brings, which forgot to reset fuller and best solution, as it is today what we need to to expand with maybe a little bit more just deliver.
07:07:51 What does the program today.
07:07:53 to return to the real income edition we can face. In recent weeks in telco size provider wants to deploy some CNS and understand what iz can bring to us value prop firm is very important to to address this vision.
07:08:12 We should not be driven only by technical concern but also by business console.
07:08:21 I agree do and I think that the guys who created is the stated that it's aimed at simplifying things and making packaging easier and simpler.
07:08:37 And here's getting married in business and we should do at least give it a try and see what what what is the right approach, they may be proven wrong in five months from now six months from now, when they realize it's not really simplified but let let
07:08:52 let people have the chance to prove that they may have married in their proposal.
07:08:57 people have the chance to prove that they may have married in their proposal. Yeah, I raise hand.
07:09:06 My turn. Yeah.
07:09:08 Okay.
07:09:09 I posted an email to help to clarify some of this discussions on the modeling subcommittee.
07:09:17 This so let me repeat what I wrote in the email in the SD project. My understanding really there are three different topics or four different topics. The first topic is the ASD information model modeling that concept, and the modeling completely independent
07:09:41 of sci fi man or architecture, or this solution is independent.
07:09:50 No dependency, no intent to try to do anything.
07:09:54 The second track or issue is the data modeling the data modeling.
07:10:01 They use the place on Im and Tosca language is completely independent to Etsy and the fee. The only thing in the data modeling current proposal as small dependency, only for the proof of concept, which is the one that no type that they derive from a VNF
07:10:28 from Etsy type definitions. But that is a very small, there's no change that they proposing, they just derive. So they to set up with so been written.
07:10:39 So that's, to me, it's independent. No, no impact nobody. The third topics, is the ASD packaging.
07:10:50 In the packaging.
07:10:52 We would like to use some of the existing packaging standards, because we don't want to major disruption on on that part.
07:10:59 So we did reference.
07:11:03 The soul for packaging specification, with some additional adjustment to accommodate the is D modeling.
07:11:14 So really the scope.
07:11:16 If we do need to talk to Etsy from own their point of view, perhaps only on the packaging, not about the ASD descriptor or information modeling.
07:11:30 So that's the third topics. The fourth topic is the park, Park, this is, is, is within their own app. And within the proof of concept had nothing to do with modeling.
07:11:44 It helped the modeling help to as part of the modeling process I guess procedures that they need to move it to the clean slate so that the code we can move forward.
07:11:59 So I can't speak, but, but that has nothing to do with Etsy either. So the only thing that one can argue that has some relate to external body that we have something is the is the packaging.
07:12:11 Now, the packaging.
07:12:12 We, we reference it, and we make edition, just like we do with eczema, non esteem I know artifacts. We use it, and we have some stuff in own nap. So, I don't mind having a discussion with Etsy, as an FYI, just sharing information.
07:12:33 But when it gets down to the technical discussions with own their project has is only small piece, which is the packaging.
07:12:43 Maybe that's what I heard earlier that maybe some of the discussion in modeling got confused because they all for different topics all bundled together, and the vote come out that way.
07:12:55 So I think if we clarify and moving the, the I Am, and the data model. Those are two piece crucial for the proof of concept, and to move forward to meet the requirements for Jakarta release in my mind.
07:13:17 Now I'll speak for the, the own app context.
07:13:22 I think I will coordinate across CNF Task Force and the model link, once they find the scope and the content of what they would like to discuss because I do need to find out what Etsy would like to hear.
07:13:38 So when that all ironed out. I will definitely get that and get the right presenters and be prepared for that workshop.
07:13:49 But we have a collaborative workshop between the task force, and the modeling subcommittee.
07:13:59 With
07:13:59 Etsy, and Fei Fei Jie.
07:14:02 That's that's all I have.
07:14:09 Thank you, in because you are really from the IT side with an understanding of the community so thank you for joining us today.
07:14:18 Based on what you said. There may be only one area that the modeling should be concerned, which is the CNS packaging so whatever we, we don't have any vote today but can you make another attempt with you're not modeling next week.
07:14:35 It's also still important to participate to the drone workshop. And if there is no agreement before the next year see call, then yes we need to do every decision at the THC level.
07:14:49 Does it make sense.
07:14:51 Is there another way to move forward with this concern. I think it makes sense and we can sort out any,
07:15:01 any misunderstandings and, and make sure that this is quite clear what we're doing.
07:15:13 Magnus Would you mind that I give you the action since you were presenting these items to the DC today. No, not at all I can, I can pick them yeah okay and who we also need to determine Not today but who will participate to the john workshop so that's
07:15:30 maybe the task force.
07:15:32 The 21st rescue time so maybe a topics for the CNS Task Force funny, you think to determine will participate to the workshop.
07:15:41 So like, put your name if you don't mind.
07:15:44 So I kept your next steps, right, does it mean we close the topics but at least we make another Adams.
07:15:54 Catherine. I'd like to get a participation from service provider because I think we.
07:16:02 Today we are using the solution so I think we need to
07:16:14 show to be present, between.
07:16:13 So would you be able to join the next unit Task Force next week, anybody, including your technique and the sin of task force is organized on Tuesday.
07:16:28 The 15th at 2pm your time
07:16:35 for following up at the modeling so committee meets Monday at 1pm. central time.
07:16:43 Central Europe time.
07:16:47 Okay,
07:16:51 I think.
07:16:54 Yeah, the reaction I got is a bit confusing, because, I mean, I can't base that on PC to quarter results and code. Yeah. Oh haven't done that.
07:17:10 Is it better, much better. Thanks.
07:17:30 So I know I was typing based on your discussion and I I didn't clean up. Is it good, like this and honey I'm sorry if I put your name everywhere. You are my, you are leading this task force, you are a great partner so hope you Okay, and then anybody within
07:17:32 trusted.
07:17:33 They should join the next Tuesday call.
07:17:37 Maybe I should also send an email to remind people.
07:17:43 And I hope that he is the technical people will be able to join us on 16.
07:18:10 clarification question that action point on Magnus a song This is the packaging. To find the agreement, but right now the know is also in the information model.
07:18:25 Are we seeing what consider the information model is already there. Great.
07:18:28 Again, I'm just not knowledgeable enough to, I was trying to use what thing was telling us, and I understood from what Tim said maybe it's only the CNS packaging.
07:18:44 Now, I think being said it's enough packaging has a little bit a relation with.
07:19:00 Okay permission what doesn't have any dependency on the NFV. So, so, I think the problem with having the modeling is that the pulling is, is over. By Monday, and we have two years, one know how we move forward, because without the TSA the guidance, we
07:19:07 can, we don't know how to move forward.
07:19:13 Still, we said we will not have a decision to the other TLC lover, right, Magnus will make another atom with the modeling team because there is the feeling that maybe the modeling team did not understood.
07:19:32 So, if I didn't capture the area madness, feel free and team to clarify so I just did it because I don't want to convince more people. Right.
07:19:44 But the propose is whatever it is. Please make another attempt with the monitoring team. And if it does not work. can you also invite the money team to attend the the cool on the 17 with the TASC so at least we can hear the two song and and try to solve
07:20:05 the potential and divergence of opinion, or you know I would prefer that the TC, sort of, is not on par with the subcommittee.
07:20:18 It seems like we're negotiating here.
07:20:21 The TCS is sort of in empower the and subcommittees advisory.
07:20:30 So, I would say, clarify the area, find an agreement that is ok, but to have a big meeting with sort of the subcommittee come in I I don't see the sense in that.
07:20:45 I think he formerly what I was saying.
07:20:48 If White. You are not successful because we need to find that agreement between us but if you are not a bird to have an agreement with the modeling team.
07:21:00 I think for the TLC perspective, we need to have at least one representative for next week we don't need all the mothering subcommittee, but
07:21:13 to hurt them. Right. Having a decision will be representing them. It will not be fair. No, no. See what I mean. No, I didn't tell you that's quite okay so okay so something else.
07:21:36 Sure. I mean if you mind if you can read the smallest small document explaining the rationale between beyond this is the concept, I think we're being brought onto so to show that for that gets you to understand why we why we want to push this kind of
07:21:51 new solution.
07:21:52 I wasn't that presented last week.
07:21:55 Yes, and in the presentation, which Magnus was, show me the wiki, where there is a detailed description.
07:22:06 I think that we can help. It's no problem we can we can make more technical
07:22:16 professional, sometimes good but you know if we have some texts of the Russian I'd be.
07:22:29 Yes, there's a Ricky, Ricky. Yeah, okay. Okay, good. I didn't fight. I will try to.
07:22:31 If you look at the CSC cool from last week or otherwise, it's not an issue. I can add it again and again is the ESC team wants to provide any information feel free to do so.
07:22:48 I suppose last week it was maybe the 27th.
07:22:55 This slide the first page is there's a couple of a link there. Yes.
07:23:00 But what we can additionally provide is the, the presentation we gave to a Linux Foundation.
07:23:08 Development forum where was a one hour presentation of a on a SD, and one presentation on proposal for proof of concept so I think we can link those two presentation that even record it, so that people can follow.
07:23:26 But if there is a need to make a yet another presentation we are completely ready to do that.
07:23:33 And that's why I invite you to the Senate desktops next week as well.
07:23:44 Okay. Are we good on this topic.
07:23:52 At least for this week.
07:23:54 We see you next week.
07:23:57 Okay, so let's have a look quickly at the rest of the agenda.
07:24:01 Just a quick note for the SPC, and maybe people you can give it. Give a heads up to join. We also write to them for the SPC I send an email this morning, stating that
07:24:21 we are looking for a new candidate I try to provide a small description about what is the mission of SPC with the best would be to have you on next week telling us more about this so Kenny and I we will sending an email, I've already reached out to him.
07:24:41 So, if he's not available next week we will postpone. So, the call for nomination is open any member of the community is eligible to submit their candidature for the wiki to that oh and was also launching a call for volunteer Timo and honey was previously
07:25:02 leading, and now Shakira is stepping up to also join the wiki. To do that force. I don't know if we have enough people for resuming these activities I will let the team in honey to comment on that one.
07:25:23 I would like to state again that humor and I words were volunteering to participate but we didn't feel we have the capacity to kind of lead this effort.
07:25:35 So, and we're still at least myself still willing to participate but we need someone with a capacity to lead this effort.
07:25:56 I don't know what chapter signed up for whether he signed up for leading or participating but we still don't have an activity leader for day.
07:25:57 I think I signed up I signed up for participating.
07:26:05 We had three participants.
07:26:07 So that's the start to right. And, you know, if we once we get the chance to meet, then we, we could decide how to move forward.
07:26:19 But if we have enough participants, I guess, then we could share the leading responsibility, or the lead responsibility.
07:26:29 But I thought I thought I want to participate because I've been working on the wiki least from the architecture subcommittee for a long time, and I have some ideas that I want to share.
07:26:39 I don't know if they're good ideas or bad ideas, but at least I thought I would.
07:26:47 So we we keep open this, because maybe to view is not enough and as you state we need to lead. I will not step up for that one let's be clear.
07:26:58 But I'm sure we have other people who might be interested. And maybe kind of partnership with, with the documentation team as well, could be also an alternative, but I know Thomas as a lot on these plates are preparing jack Africa and the madness I will
07:27:17 not be too pushy.
07:27:18 But that's the topics we continue to have on the plate weathers I miss my topics. So the committee I work just reminders. No no mission, non nomination yet but we knew all the nomination usually pop up at the last minute so we are not too concerned at
07:27:37 this stage, I was hoping to freeze we discuss in TLC members, focusing on the priorities that will be a topic for next week, so we put next week because we doing it in three minutes, I cannot do it.
07:27:55 Anything will be good.
07:27:57 And then, David a quick update about the project life cycles, potentially,
07:28:07 Maybe we have lost, David McBride. No.
07:28:12 Catherine.
07:28:16 I'm not sorry I'm not familiar unmaintained projects. Oh that Okay, sorry.
07:28:23 Okay, yeah.
07:28:26 We've been late.
07:28:29 And there have been some interesting proposals around.
07:28:33 A tools that we could use to automatically identify dependencies, and then lately.
07:28:42 We've been talking about having a source of truth a single source of truth for which repositories are included in a release. And so we've been talking about a
07:29:01 structured data file like a Jamo file or similar to all of the own app directories. and then,
07:29:15 whether they are active for the release, or not. In other words, included in the release, because this is something that that we've lacked for some time that that
07:29:29 a few people have pointed out that it's difficult for us to say in a release, we can say which projects are participating, but we can't really, you know, with authority say these are the exact set of repositories that are included in this, this release,
07:29:47 and that in turn will help understanding, you know the the dependencies and what their their impact is by understanding which repositories are active so so that that work is ongoing.
07:30:06 And we meet every Monday at 8am Pacific. I think that most of the people that are interested in this topic have been added to the invitation, but if you have not just drop me a note.
07:30:24 Happy to add you to that invitation.
07:30:33 Thank you, David. And back to you penny to finalize the agenda.
07:30:39 I think I make all the key point for this week, I guess.
07:30:44 Yep.
07:30:46 Just quickly, the open network on the edge executive forum. This is the
07:30:57 two day event where industry executives present.
07:31:02 That's coming up in April.
07:31:04 There's a link there but right now just goes to a splash page there's no registration set up yet.
07:31:11 We already touched on the discussion of