@Fiete Ostkamp

@Keguang He 

@Byung-Woo Jun 

@N.K. Shankaranarayanan 

@Dan Timoney 

@Paweł Pawlak 

Guanyu Zhu (@zhuguanyu)

@Dong Wang

Strategy (45 minutes)

We are encouraging ONAP consumers to share with us their feedback, so we could prioritize our activities and make ONAP better suited their needs and requirements.

No Update

O-RAN OSFG Fall 2025 Workshop

@Byung-Woo Jun

• @Byung-Woo Jun , presented the ONAP status and ongoing work in relation to O-RAN activities at the O-RAN OSFG Fall 2025 Workshop. The focus will include ONAP semi-standalone projects and individual deployments that can help facilitate adoption within OSC.

  • SDNC and OOM can be used in OSC

  • A GitOps-based onboarding plan could be an interesting approach to ensure consistent architecture across LFN.

• Reports:

  • As you know, the O-RAN OSFG Workshop was held last week at UNH, where I presented the topic of ONAP and OSC SMO collaboration (see attached).

    @Byung-Woo Jun presented it in a way that would capture the attention of the OSC key players. Based on the feedback and discussions, it seems our work is being recognized and appreciated by the OSC leadership. Notably, David Kinsey and others suggested moving the OSC SMO functions into ONAP - leveraging ONAP functions for OSC SMO. More discussions are needed, but this is now a real possibility.

    From my perspective, the current OSC SMO continues to face challenges in producing high-quality applications and lacks robust security support. I highlighted that ONAP’s modular components are already close to production quality, with flexible pick-and-choose capabilities. For example, DT has elevated several core ONAP components to production grade in their environment. I also emphasized that the ONAP security architecture (Service Mesh, Ingress Gateway, etc.) could significantly enhance the quality and reliability of the OSC SMO if adopted.

    We’ll see how things develop from here.

  • Expecting some discussions between the ONAP PTLs and TSC and the key OSC stakeholders.

  • The OSC team suggested changing the name from ONAP and ONAC

No Update

ONAP TSC LFN Budget 2026

@LJ Illuzzi

We are working on the 2026 LFN budget. Each LFN project is asked to provide budget requests for specific line items the project will need. This is the same process that has been used in the past and I added some input below. The LFN Board will be reviewing and approving the budget on its Oct 24 meeting.

 Target completion by Oct 9

DoD & Georgia Tech AI-based Anomaly dectection

@Byung-Woo Jun

• DoD & Georgia Tech’s AI-based 5G anomaly detection demo, leveraging ONAP DCAE and other related components, is scheduled for the SECCOM meeting on September 30th.

• zoom: https://zoom-lfx.platform.linuxfoundation.org/meeting/97787508835?password=8196aa9a-a50a-4ae9-84ee-3de1fd3b35b8

• time: 8am EDT (12PM UTC)

• to do: put their wiki pages and github

• @Muddasar Ahmed camara could be a model - to be investigated

Pruning Repos list for migrate to Github action

@Kevin Sandi

@Byung-Woo Jun

• @Kevin Sandi , asked PTLs to review the active repos list.

• https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DW/pages/413499424 - Byung made a wiki page for this.

  • TSC, PTLs, please review the list that Kevin made

@Byung-Woo Jun , A demo on Essedum to the LFN TAC,

• see https://github.com/essedum-project/essedum-platform for Essedum

• Can we consider using Essedum for Nephio AI in the future? I plan to discuss this further with the Essedum team.

@Byung-Woo Jun , incorporated Matt’s reports into the slide deck that was presented today.

• @Matt Watkins , will test the CBOM tool kit against CCSDK/SDNC

  • CCSDK/SDNC is maven-based, which is good

Byung-Woo Jun

• Nephio: AI-based Hydration of Nephio CRDs and CRs User Story draft, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Xa2iScPPakEM1Lhcj9cjI3NNqWjHd0-O-Rh9zY7bt68/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.z1c3voi1yrgp - WIP
  
  

LFX Insight Incorrect Contributor

@Toine Siebelink

https://insights.linuxfoundation.org/project/onap/repository/https:-gerrit.onap.org-r-cps/contributors?timeRange=past365days&start=2024-09-22&end=2025-09-22&widget=active-contributors

https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/plugins/servlet/desk/portal/4/SUPPORT-37700

• some contributor lists are not correct

• @Toine Siebelink , will create a ticket

• https://insights.linuxfoundation.org/project/onap/contributors?timeRange=past180days&start=2025-03-26&end=2025-09-22&widget=active-contributors

•  

WIP : Juansebastian Arias is working on it with Toine

ONAP Repository Activity Report

@Matt Watkins

https://github.com/modeseven-lfit/project-reports/actions/runs/17907740117

ONAP report ZIP file here: https://github.com/modeseven-lfit/project-reports/actions/runs/17907740117/artifacts/4069324417

file:///Users/byung-woojun/Downloads/reports-ONAP/report.html

@Matt Watkins , will provide another refined set of reports next week or so…

• discussed with Andrew for additional type of reports, such as cross references.

• getting closed to finish, Gerrit Project Analysis Report

• After the Paris release, we plan to publish a white paper on the ONAP semi-standalone evolution and key highlights from the Paris release.

• Jill Lovato also suggested hosting a webinar to support this.

• We can discuss which approach to prioritize—or consider doing both.

• @Byung-Woo Jun , White paper draft: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LlRhQp6okPEAKY7BfYOrz6rqCmj7seACW2SRwtMSW3U/edit?tab=t.0 - Plan to release it to the LFN marketing by end of this week.
  
  

• Jill Lovato and team have published an official LFN document, "Unlocking the Future: The Evolution and Strategic Direction of ONAP"(a.k.a. ONAP  Massage  2025):

  • https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:ap:2faae77e-048c-4c69-bf69-02c3909b6923 

Paris main page upgrade

@LJ Illuzzi

• update the ONAP wiki and onap.org pages for the latest ONAP release, Paris

  • onap.org is up-to-date - Done

  • onap wiki page needs to be updated

Operations (40 minutes)

Quebec Cadence

@Byung-Woo Jun

• Discussion Points - DONE

Open

• Open

  

• @Thomas Kulik , is investigating branch vs. tag for multiple project releases within the service cadence. under testing; need permission to go further. @Thomas Kulik , please open a LF IT ticket.

• Working with Matt - need more understanding and investigation - WIP

• @Matt Watkins , github and rtd ; three tickets are opened - completed.

• https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/browse/IT-28520

  https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/browse/IT-28495

  https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/browse/IT-28519

• Shared the ticket outcome with PTLs.

• TSC, any more discussion points?

• Release Planning: Quebec

• will use the centralized quebec releate key update page.

• Governance Service Cadence

• Project release Cadence

• Project Feature Brainstorming: Collaborate with PTLs to understand their plans for upcoming release(s).

  • embedding AI capabilities?

  • AI-driven Analytics via DCAE

  • Policy Recommendations via GenAI

  • Closed-Loop Automation

  • Intent translation

  • Data Enrichments

  • @Muddasar Ahmed 's suggestions

    • SABRES, adding AI capabilities to DCAE, will check with USC;

    • @Byung-Woo Jun is checking with USC for their open-source grant status.

      • Will have a meeting with Erik Kline at USC, Muddasar at MITRE, LJ.

    • Requirement templates for security; automation using AI Agent? outside of traditional APIs?

    • from LF IT perspective, how much AI capabilities can be added into CI/CD (automation)

    • get some meetings to discuss?

    • Ranny mentioned about Essedum use? (essedum vs. ONAP)

    • IBM CBOM use? see the seccom report section

    • Multi-tenant full stack separation/sharing on ONAP capabilities?

    • need documentation that explains the changes related to semi-standalone projects.

    • DT and other operators' feedback is important.

    • “Notebook LLM” by google, try to use - summarize outline

  • Georgia Tech AI-based security, https://github.com/gtri  

    • e.g., adding AI-based security features, leveraging ONAP (possibly DCAE, SDNC, and others)

    • - information will be available soon.

    • https://lf-onap.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/DW/pages/299499552

@Byung-Woo Jun

PTLs

• CPS: working on the next release; continue on enhancements

• OOM: working on the gate pipeline

• Policy: Plan to cut their first secure tag for quebec soon…

• Portal-NG:

• SO: springboot from 2.3 to 2.4

• UUI

• CCSDK/SDNC: some update on opendaylight for quebec

• SDC: new images

• AAI: java 17 upgrade

• DCAE

• MultiCloud: K8s pipeline is green, but one pipeline issue related golang; opened a ticket to LF IT

• CDS

CSIT Test Management

@Toine Siebelink

@Priyank Maheshwari

• Problem Statements:

  • CSIT (Continuous System/Software Integration Testing) tests are still run very every verify job (many times per day!) and are causing us headaches because of more frequent intermittent failures (about 1/43 runs now) due to several causes, like, but not limited to:

    • General timeout dues to slow responding infra structure

    • Docker image pull request limitations

     

    Also the maintenance of CSIT test is not great as  'robot' is very outdated framework and does result in tests that are difficult to read and maintain.

• Discussion Points:

  • Trigger jobs on demand

  • checking cross-component use/dependency of CSIT test, e.g., does the OOM use liveness tests? Any other dependences?

  • phase it out slowly?

  • Once a day or on-demand? decoupling from the regular build?

  • @Kevin Sandi , wants to see an example of jobs before our decision. @Priyank Maheshwari , opened an LF IT ticket, https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/plugins/servlet/desk/portal/2/IT-28555

  • @Kevin Sandi will take a look at the ticket. - After his Github Actions migration work, he will dedicate some time to this ticket.

  • @Matt Watkins , some inter-dependency with python?

• What is our next step?

  • will discuss this for additional input from PTLs.

  • Need additional discussions
    
    

Kevin Sandi

Matthew Watkins

@LJ Illuzzi

• IT Support discussion took place on Sept 25 24. It was well- attended, well received, and positive. Followup meeting on Oct 09.

• We’re currently gathering input from PTLs and TSC on suggestions and concerns regarding LF IT enhancements (TBD). Once we compile the list of enhancement points, we will schedule a meeting with the LF IT team.

  • TSC and PTLs, please send feedback on potential LF IT service enhancements, so we can compile a list before engaging with the LF IT team.

  • If you have any suggestions or issues you’d like to include, please feel free to reply to this email -- early next week is perfectly fine.

  • We plan to have a meeting with the LF IT team with the current feedback.

  • TSC and PTL feedback

    • Discussion Points with LF IT Team

      • Turn-Around Time for Fixes

      • The main concern with the LF-IT report process is the long turn-around time for fixes. We are not sure what the defined SLAs are, but many delays appear to stem from factors outside a single LF-IT support team member’s control (e.g., Matt, Kevin, Eric, Andrew…).

      • For example, a second LF-IT person is required to approve and merge changes made by the first. Since Matt cannot approve or test his own changes in CI-related repositories, we often wait several hours until support becomes available in another time zone. This delay is compounded when multiple iterations of fix–test–modify are needed, turning what could have been a few hours of work into several days.

      • Additionally, since Matt is the only LF-IT support person in the European time zone (and Kevin and Eric support the US region; any others?), ONAP is impacted when he is on leave or traveling.

      Suggestions:

      1. Remove the restriction requiring a second LF-IT person to approve and merge changes (case by case), or ensure the second person’s review is available promptly.

      2. Alternatively, allow running a “black” version of scripts until they are validated.

      3. Adding Other Users or Groups to IT Tickets

      4. Anyone who logs an IT ticket should be able to add other users or groups to view or contribute. Currently, the IT portal is a wrapper around JIRA, which we cannot access directly. While LF-IT can add people for us, it would be more efficient if we could do this ourselves.

      Suggestions:

      1. Maybe the current system supports this?