Date   
locked Topics for Akraino community call on September 13th?

Tapio Tallgren
 

Hi all,

We have scheduled the second Akraino community call for Thursday, September 13th. Since a lot of the people who have contributed to the blueprint discussion on the mailing list have conflicting meetings, I would like to hear suggestions for topics.

-Tapio

Akraino Mail Lists Update - ACTION REQUIRED

Jacqueline Serafin
 

Akraino Community,

In order to facilitate future discussions in clearly delineated forums utilizing open source project best practices we have made changes to the mail lists available for this community. Please review below the lists available and ensure you subscribe to the lists you are interested in by adding yourself to the applicable subgroups.

  • Subgroups Available:
    • [new] tsc@... 
      • To be used for top-level technical/governance discussions, TSC agendas/minutes, etc. Open to everyone, not only to TSC members.
      • To be used for general technical discussion and questions. 

The main@... list will remain available but we recommend using this list extremely sparingly, for top-level milestone or critical announcements as the messages will hit all subscribers of all subgroups. 

As the Akraino project grows and scales we can certainly add additional lists but we’d like to first establish a proper foundation and thoughtfully build from there. 

If you have any questions, please reach out. 

Thank you,

Jacqueline


Jacqueline Serafin
Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 676-1127 (m)

Re: Use cases and Blueprints

Margaret Chiosi <margaret.chiosi1@...>
 

I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
1. Architecture
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
3. Test

Re: Akraino Mail Lists Update - ACTION REQUIRED

fzdarsky@...
 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:03 PM Jacqueline Serafin
<jserafin@...> wrote:

Akraino Community,

In order to facilitate future discussions in clearly delineated forums utilizing open source project best practices we have made changes to the mail lists available for this community. Please review below the lists available and ensure you subscribe to the lists you are interested in by adding yourself to the applicable subgroups.

Subgroups Available:

[new] tsc@...

To be used for top-level technical/governance discussions, TSC agendas/minutes, etc. Open to everyone, not only to TSC members.

[new] technical-discuss@...

To be used for general technical discussion and questions.


The main@... list will remain available but we recommend using this list extremely sparingly, for top-level milestone or critical announcements as the messages will hit all subscribers of all subgroups.
Would it make sense to rename this to "announce@..." then?


As the Akraino project grows and scales we can certainly add additional lists but we’d like to first establish a proper foundation and thoughtfully build from there.

If you have any questions, please reach out.

Thank you,

Jacqueline


Jacqueline Serafin
Program Manager
The Linux Foundation
+1 (415) 676-1127 (m)
jserafin@...



--
Frank Zdarsky | NFV&SDN Technology Strategy, Office of the CTO | Red Hat
e: fzdarsky@... | irc: fzdarsky@freenode | m: +49 175 82 11 64 4

Re: Use cases and Blueprints

Andrew Wilkinson
 

 

I wouldn’t see a Test definition (3) as a ‘blueprint’.

 

Nor would I see specific functional components (2) developed by the Akraino community as ‘blueprints’ either.

 

I think using the term blueprint for everything tends to make the term too broad. The term blueprint in common parlance is taken to mean the definition of how to build something (e.g. a building – a house or a shed etc). I could of course be expanded to encompass more (like a test blueprint) but would suggest we keep Akraino blueprints to be more specific and not include  functionality or test schedules.

 

Rather I propose a blueprint be used to classify a set of options that cab result in distinct POD deployments. The term ‘Network Clod blueprint’ would be used as such.

 

Andrew

From: main@... <main@...> On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:22 PM
To: main@...
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
1. Architecture
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
3. Test

Re: Akraino Mail Lists Update - ACTION REQUIRED

fzdarsky@...
 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 6:25 PM Andrew Grimberg
<@tykeal> wrote:

On 09/13/2018 08:37 AM, fzdarsky@... wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:03 PM Jacqueline Serafin
<jserafin@...> wrote:
--snip--

The main@... list will remain available but we recommend using this list extremely sparingly, for top-level milestone or critical announcements as the messages will hit all subscribers of all subgroups.
Would it make sense to rename this to "announce@..." then?
My understanding of the underlying list platform we're using is that the
main list can't be renamed.
Understood, np. Sorry for the noise.


-Andy-

--
Andrew J Grimberg
Manager Release Engineering
The Linux Foundation

--
Frank Zdarsky | NFV&SDN Technology Strategy, Office of the CTO | Red Hat
e: fzdarsky@... | irc: fzdarsky@freenode | m: +49 175 82 11 64 4

Re: Use cases and Blueprints

fzdarsky@...
 

On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:39 PM Andrew Wilkinson
<andrew.wilkinson@...> wrote:



I wouldn’t see a Test definition (3) as a ‘blueprint’.



Nor would I see specific functional components (2) developed by the Akraino community as ‘blueprints’ either.



I think using the term blueprint for everything tends to make the term too broad. The term blueprint in common parlance is taken to mean the definition of how to build something (e.g. a building – a house or a shed etc). I could of course be expanded to encompass more (like a test blueprint) but would suggest we keep Akraino blueprints to be more specific and not include functionality or test schedules.
I tend to agree. The term "blueprint" in Akraino is already confusing
enough, even without using it also in the OpenStack Blueprint kind of
sense ;)




Rather I propose a blueprint be used to classify a set of options that cab result in distinct POD deployments. The term ‘Network Clod blueprint’ would be used as such.



Andrew

From: main@... <main@...> On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:22 PM
To: main@...
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints



I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
1. Architecture
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
3. Test



--
Frank Zdarsky | NFV&SDN Technology Strategy, Office of the CTO | Red Hat
e: fzdarsky@... | irc: fzdarsky@freenode | m: +49 175 82 11 64 4

Re: Akraino Mail Lists Update - ACTION REQUIRED

Andrew Grimberg
 

On 09/13/2018 08:37 AM, fzdarsky@... wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 5:03 PM Jacqueline Serafin
<jserafin@...> wrote:
--snip--

The main@... list will remain available but we recommend using this list extremely sparingly, for top-level milestone or critical announcements as the messages will hit all subscribers of all subgroups.
Would it make sense to rename this to "announce@..." then?
My understanding of the underlying list platform we're using is that the
main list can't be renamed.

-Andy-

--
Andrew J Grimberg
Manager Release Engineering
The Linux Foundation

Re: Use cases and Blueprints

Margaret Chiosi <margaret.chiosi1@...>
 

I will be surprised if we can come up with one functional set of components we all agree on based on my OPNFV/ONAP experience.

But we can try.

 

Thank You,

Margaret Chiosi

VP Open Ecosystem Team

 

Admin: Sophie Johnson

Sophie.johnson1@...

+1 (908) 541-3590

 

Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

Fixed Network Solution CC

400 Crossing Blvd

Bridgewater, NJ 08807

(cell) +1-732-216-5507

 

 

From: Andrew Wilkinson [mailto:andrew.wilkinson@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 11:40 AM
To: Margaret Chiosi (A) <margaret.chiosi1@...>; main@...
Subject: RE: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

 

I wouldn’t see a Test definition (3) as a ‘blueprint’.

 

Nor would I see specific functional components (2) developed by the Akraino community as ‘blueprints’ either.

 

I think using the term blueprint for everything tends to make the term too broad. The term blueprint in common parlance is taken to mean the definition of how to build something (e.g. a building – a house or a shed etc). I could of course be expanded to encompass more (like a test blueprint) but would suggest we keep Akraino blueprints to be more specific and not include  functionality or test schedules.

 

Rather I propose a blueprint be used to classify a set of options that cab result in distinct POD deployments. The term ‘Network Clod blueprint’ would be used as such.

 

Andrew

From: main@... <main@...> On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:22 PM
To: main@...
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
1. Architecture
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
3. Test

Re: Use cases and Blueprints

Margaret Chiosi <margaret.chiosi1@...>
 

Actually I would have thought integration meant ‘testing’ and functional meant architecture J

But as long as we define the different blueprints and the definition of them.

 

Thank You,

Margaret Chiosi

VP Open Ecosystem Team

 

Admin: Sophie Johnson

Sophie.johnson1@...

+1 (908) 541-3590

 

Futurewei Technologies, Inc.

Fixed Network Solution CC

400 Crossing Blvd

Bridgewater, NJ 08807

(cell) +1-732-216-5507

 

 

From: Seiler, Glenn [mailto:glenn.seiler@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 2:43 PM
To: Margaret Chiosi (A) <margaret.chiosi1@...>; main@...
Subject: RE: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I may have missed some threads, but I thought we were discussing

1)      Integration Blueprints (architecture)

2)      Functional Blueprints  (components)

 

I agree with some of the other comments that we risk spreading or diluting the definition of Blueprint to broadly and it can be very confusing.

I support the idea that blueprints are pretty specific, not just defining components that are integrated, but how they are intended to be used and deployed.

I’m not sure this would apply to an individual component (or functional) blueprint.

 

-glenn

 

From: main@... [mailto:main@...] On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:22 AM
To: main@...
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
1. Architecture
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
3. Test

Re: Use cases and Blueprints

Glenn Seiler
 

I may have missed some threads, but I thought we were discussing

1)      Integration Blueprints (architecture)

2)      Functional Blueprints  (components)

 

I agree with some of the other comments that we risk spreading or diluting the definition of Blueprint to broadly and it can be very confusing.

I support the idea that blueprints are pretty specific, not just defining components that are integrated, but how they are intended to be used and deployed.

I’m not sure this would apply to an individual component (or functional) blueprint.

 

-glenn

 

From: main@... [mailto:main@...] On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:22 AM
To: main@...
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
1. Architecture
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
3. Test

Re: Use cases and Blueprints

KATHIRVEL, KANDAN
 

We (TSC) are putting together a draft with all the terminologies this community to use and a process around it. As we promised in the yesterday’s community call, we will review the draft on next Thursday 11 ET @ community call. The intent is to baseline the version by this month end with TSC approval.

I encourage everyone in the community to join next community call to participate in the discussion.

-Kandan

 

 

From: <main@...> on behalf of Glenn Seiler <Glenn.seiler@...>
Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:41 AM
To: Margaret Chiosi <margaret.chiosi1@...>, "main@..." <main@...>
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I may have missed some threads, but I thought we were discussing

  1. Integration Blueprints (architecture)
  2. Functional Blueprints  (components)

 

I agree with some of the other comments that we risk spreading or diluting the definition of Blueprint to broadly and it can be very confusing.

I support the idea that blueprints are pretty specific, not just defining components that are integrated, but how they are intended to be used and deployed.

I’m not sure this would apply to an individual component (or functional) blueprint.

 

-glenn

 

From: main@... [mailto:main@...] On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:22 AM
To: main@...
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
1. Architecture
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
3. Test

Re: Use cases and Blueprints

Wenjing Chu <Wenjing.Chu@...>
 

Looks like the main@ list is rejecting new topics now. I guess the intention is moving all these to:

technical-discuss@...

or

tsc@...

 

Right now, these new groups have very few subscribers. You will need to go to https://lists.akraino.org to sign up. It appears NOT automatic.

 

In any case, my intended email thread was: (Apologies for skirting rules here – since the new groups aren’t adequately up running with subscribers yet.)

 

 

For folks going to ONS-EU Amsterdam Sept 25-27.

 

I have created a new Unconference session: “Edge Stack Discussion for Cloud Edge and IoT”.

It’s a good opportunity to bring together people from several open source projects working in the edge space during ONS. I’d love to see you all join this session.

 

Add your names to:

https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/Open+Networking+Summit+Europe+2018+-+Unconference+Topic+Proposals

 

Regards

Wenjing

 

 

From: main@... [mailto:main@...] On Behalf Of KATHIRVEL, KANDAN
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 10:43 AM
To: Glenn Seiler <Glenn.seiler@...>; Margaret Chiosi (A) <margaret.chiosi1@...>; main@...
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

We (TSC) are putting together a draft with all the terminologies this community to use and a process around it. As we promised in the yesterday’s community call, we will review the draft on next Thursday 11 ET @ community call. The intent is to baseline the version by this month end with TSC approval.

I encourage everyone in the community to join next community call to participate in the discussion.

-Kandan

 

 

From: <main@...> on behalf of Glenn Seiler <Glenn.seiler@...>
Date: Friday, September 14, 2018 at 11:41 AM
To: Margaret Chiosi <margaret.chiosi1@...>, "main@..." <main@...>
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I may have missed some threads, but I thought we were discussing

1)     Integration Blueprints (architecture)

2)     Functional Blueprints  (components)

 

I agree with some of the other comments that we risk spreading or diluting the definition of Blueprint to broadly and it can be very confusing.

I support the idea that blueprints are pretty specific, not just defining components that are integrated, but how they are intended to be used and deployed.

I’m not sure this would apply to an individual component (or functional) blueprint.

 

-glenn

 

From: main@... [mailto:main@...] On Behalf Of Margaret Chiosi
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:22 AM
To: main@...
Subject: Re: [Akraino Main] Use cases and Blueprints

 

I thought in email folks were ok with the following types of blueprint:
1. Architecture
2. components (Physical/virtual) supporting a specific 'use case'
3. Test

FW: [tsc-private] Akraino Blueprint Technical Charter

Andrew Wilkinson
 

Resending to main@... as requested by moderator. So some may already seen this - apologies if so.

There is also very interesting suggestion from Frank of a higher level classification i.e. 'Order' to define the target use case (there of course there could be one or more 'Families' of solutions to support that use case).

Again I would like to stress this isn't suggesting or encouraging sprawl to the project - it is quite valid to start with one instance of Family, Genus and Species for a give use case e.g. to support 5G VNF edge deployments - my target is enable a flexible framework to add within the Akraino blueprint framework as time and new releases occur even if we only start with one or two possibilities initially.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Wilkinson <andrew.wilkinson@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:02 PM
To: tsc-voting@...
Subject: Re: [tsc-private] Akraino Blueprint Technical Charter

As we may be discussing this in multiple forums/email lists so apologies if this is a repeat for some on the this list but sending again to make sure all see it.

I think there are fundamentally 3 levels involved in the inception of new family of PODs to the deployment of an actual physical Akraino POD at an actual site.

3. The lowest is exact and defined by a set of yaml files that build the actual POD deployed to a site. This is down to the number of compute, type of compute, SW versions, names of servers etc etc. If I say change from 3 to 4 compute in a POD this level changes as one or more of the yaml files changes

Then the first two levels would be

1. The Blueprint level as the highest level. This is for example a 'Network Cloud' blueprint or the 'StarlingX' blueprint or whatever is approved/offered to the community. Within this characterization the are a number of immutable characteristics that make it that blueprint that blueprint and fundamentally differen to other blueprints e.g. (not i.e.!) use of airship, installation of OpenStack etc.

2. The Blueprint Specification. This allows variation of major components of the blueprint e.g. the use of say Dell over HP compute, the use of Ubuntu over say Centos etc etc. It's important to note there could be just one specification or a number depending on a given blueprint.

I gave these names in keeping with the opensource community's love of animal themes and borrowed from the Linnaeus biological taxonomy structure : Blueprint Family (1) , Genus (2) and Species (3)

We should review this as a proposal at the next blueprint session.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: tsc-voting@... <tsc-voting@...> On Behalf Of Takeshi Kuwahara
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 7:49 AM
To: tsc-voting@...
Subject: Re: [tsc-private] Akraino Blueprint Technical Charter

Dear team,

A blueprint specification template should support various use cases and requirements. On the other hand, it is not always easy to list up all the possible use cases and requirements to be supported by a blueprint when it's proposed. Also, it is necessary to energize the community by providing a mechanism that is easy to accept various proposals.
Therefore, the community needs to be able to update existing blueprint specification templates when necessary. Major triggers of such update are:

A) Major/minor version update of a software component included in a given blueprint specification template. Example: Ubuntu 18.04.1 -> 18.04.2

B) Newer generation of a hardware component included in a given blueprint specification template. Example: Dell R740 -> R750

C) Proposal of new use cases and requirements/test cases which could be solved by updating an existing blueprint specification template through feature updates and/or template options updates. Example: Lower latency Network Cloud

Software updates (A) can be verified and incorporated as the update to the existing blueprint spec template through an appropriate CI/CD mechanism.

Hardware renewal (B) can also be done in the same way if anyone can contribute to bring those to CI/CD labs.

New proposals (C) can be handled in the following way:

1) Contributor who are going to propose it needs to explain clear use
case(s) and its requirements (i.e. POD and test cases).

2) If the community has an existing blueprint specification template (here assume BPT-A 1.0) which can solve some use cases and requirements that is not too far from the proposed ones, then the community can treat the proposal as potential update of the existing blueprint spec template (BPT-A 1.1 or 2.0, depending of versioning policy). If not, the community should consider to make another blueprint spec template (BPT-B 1.0).

The point is that we should not make too many numbers of blueprint spec templates for the sake of the community maintenance and market value.
Therefore, new proposal needs to be compared to the existing ones and only when it’s not close at all to any, we can consider making new blueprint spec templates.


Thanks,

- Takeshi


On 2018/09/04 23:53, Tina Tsou wrote:
Dear team,

Draft of Akraino blueprint technical charter is attached, and the link
is here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SxqUV0VnfbU_M3YyBZh6WE6_eRd_gm3SYI
RiutXDz6M

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose
the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or
copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
--
---
Takeshi KUWAHARA
<kuwahara.takeshi@...>
Network Technology Labs,
NTT

Re: [tsc-private] Akraino Blueprint Technical Charter

Margaret Chiosi <margaret.chiosi1@...>
 

+1 like the organization proposal

Thank You,
Margaret Chiosi
VP Open Ecosystem Team

Admin: Sophie Johnson
Sophie.johnson1@...
+1 (908) 541-3590

Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Fixed Network Solution CC
400 Crossing Blvd
Bridgewater, NJ 08807
(cell) +1-732-216-5507

-----Original Message-----
From: main@... [mailto:main@...] On Behalf Of Andrew Wilkinson
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 5:10 AM
To: main@...
Subject: [Akraino Main] FW: [tsc-private] Akraino Blueprint Technical Charter

Resending to main@... as requested by moderator. So some may already seen this - apologies if so.

There is also very interesting suggestion from Frank of a higher level classification i.e. 'Order' to define the target use case (there of course there could be one or more 'Families' of solutions to support that use case).

Again I would like to stress this isn't suggesting or encouraging sprawl to the project - it is quite valid to start with one instance of Family, Genus and Species for a give use case e.g. to support 5G VNF edge deployments - my target is enable a flexible framework to add within the Akraino blueprint framework as time and new releases occur even if we only start with one or two possibilities initially.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Wilkinson <andrew.wilkinson@...>
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 4:02 PM
To: tsc-voting@...
Subject: Re: [tsc-private] Akraino Blueprint Technical Charter

As we may be discussing this in multiple forums/email lists so apologies if this is a repeat for some on the this list but sending again to make sure all see it.

I think there are fundamentally 3 levels involved in the inception of new family of PODs to the deployment of an actual physical Akraino POD at an actual site.

3. The lowest is exact and defined by a set of yaml files that build the actual POD deployed to a site. This is down to the number of compute, type of compute, SW versions, names of servers etc etc. If I say change from 3 to 4 compute in a POD this level changes as one or more of the yaml files changes

Then the first two levels would be

1. The Blueprint level as the highest level. This is for example a 'Network Cloud' blueprint or the 'StarlingX' blueprint or whatever is approved/offered to the community. Within this characterization the are a number of immutable characteristics that make it that blueprint that blueprint and fundamentally differen to other blueprints e.g. (not i.e.!) use of airship, installation of OpenStack etc.

2. The Blueprint Specification. This allows variation of major components of the blueprint e.g. the use of say Dell over HP compute, the use of Ubuntu over say Centos etc etc. It's important to note there could be just one specification or a number depending on a given blueprint.

I gave these names in keeping with the opensource community's love of animal themes and borrowed from the Linnaeus biological taxonomy structure : Blueprint Family (1) , Genus (2) and Species (3)

We should review this as a proposal at the next blueprint session.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: tsc-voting@... <tsc-voting@...> On Behalf Of Takeshi Kuwahara
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 7:49 AM
To: tsc-voting@...
Subject: Re: [tsc-private] Akraino Blueprint Technical Charter

Dear team,

A blueprint specification template should support various use cases and requirements. On the other hand, it is not always easy to list up all the possible use cases and requirements to be supported by a blueprint when it's proposed. Also, it is necessary to energize the community by providing a mechanism that is easy to accept various proposals.
Therefore, the community needs to be able to update existing blueprint specification templates when necessary. Major triggers of such update are:

A) Major/minor version update of a software component included in a given blueprint specification template. Example: Ubuntu 18.04.1 -> 18.04.2

B) Newer generation of a hardware component included in a given blueprint specification template. Example: Dell R740 -> R750

C) Proposal of new use cases and requirements/test cases which could be solved by updating an existing blueprint specification template through feature updates and/or template options updates. Example: Lower latency Network Cloud

Software updates (A) can be verified and incorporated as the update to the existing blueprint spec template through an appropriate CI/CD mechanism.

Hardware renewal (B) can also be done in the same way if anyone can contribute to bring those to CI/CD labs.

New proposals (C) can be handled in the following way:

1) Contributor who are going to propose it needs to explain clear use
case(s) and its requirements (i.e. POD and test cases).

2) If the community has an existing blueprint specification template (here assume BPT-A 1.0) which can solve some use cases and requirements that is not too far from the proposed ones, then the community can treat the proposal as potential update of the existing blueprint spec template (BPT-A 1.1 or 2.0, depending of versioning policy). If not, the community should consider to make another blueprint spec template (BPT-B 1.0).

The point is that we should not make too many numbers of blueprint spec templates for the sake of the community maintenance and market value.
Therefore, new proposal needs to be compared to the existing ones and only when it’s not close at all to any, we can consider making new blueprint spec templates.


Thanks,

- Takeshi


On 2018/09/04 23:53, Tina Tsou wrote:
Dear team,

Draft of Akraino blueprint technical charter is attached, and the link
is here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SxqUV0VnfbU_M3YyBZh6WE6_eRd_gm3SYI
RiutXDz6M

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose
the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or
copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
--
---
Takeshi KUWAHARA
<kuwahara.takeshi@...>
Network Technology Labs,
NTT

Re: Akraino Mail Lists Update - ACTION REQUIRED

Jacqueline Serafin
 

Akraino Community,

Reminder: If you have not done so, please take a minute to subscribe to the new subgroups created for TSC and Technical-Discussions if you would like to be included in those discussions. We will be transitioning all current and future discussions to the appropriate forums and thank you in advance for your cooperation.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out.

Thank you,
Jacqueline

04/05/2019 Akarino TSC F2F

Sujata Tibrewala
 

04/02 & 04/05 TSC F2F Meeting

When:
Tuesday, 2nd April 2018
Friday, 5th  April 2018

Where:
San Francisco Bay Area, Santa Clara, CA (further details to follow) or Zoom Dial In

Organizer:
tsc@...

An RSVP is requested. <link to come soon>

Description:
Additional meeting and agenda details will follow. 
Visit the 04/02 & 04/05 TSC F2F Wiki Page event wiki page for updates.

Meeting Lead: Tina Tsou, Akraino TSC Co-Chair, tina.tsou@...

 

 

ONS NA 2019 Un-Conference - Leverage OPNFV Test Frameworks

Trevor Cooper
 

Please note this un-conference discussion on Fri 4/5 15:10

 

Short Description:  Explore opportunities for your LFN project to accelerate development of test frameworks, tools and methods through collaboration with OPNFV.

 

Detailed Description: OPNFV has developed significant functional and performance test assets including frameworks, tools, methods, test cases and test data. For an overview of the OPNFV Test Ecosystem refer to https://docs.opnfv.org/en/stable-gambia/testing/ecosystem/overview.html. The significant investments in OPNFV test projects and related activities could be leveraged by other  LFN projects that require testing of integrated upstream ingredients and platforms. This discussion is to brainstorm about how to reuse existing work and artifacts so that we do not reinvent proverbial wheels in this arena. All ideas and input are welcome!

 

-----------------

 

Un-conference topics: https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/Open+Networking+Summit+North+America+2019+-+Un-conference+Topic+Proposals

 

Un-conference schedule https://wiki.lfnetworking.org/display/LN/ONS+NA+2019+Un-Conference+Schedule

 

---------------------

 

For any questions on this or other un-conference topics please contact David McBride dmcbride@...

 

/Trevor