Table of Contents | ||
---|---|---|
|
TOC Voting Members
Name | Company |
---|---|
Jack Murray Co-Chair | |
Jinri Huang Co-Chair | |
David Streibl | |
Masafumi Masuda | |
Vincent Danno | O-RANge |
Viswanath Kumar Skand Priya | |
Available (7) | Available (7) |
Available (8) | Available (8) |
Available (9) | Available (9) |
Available (10) | Available (10) |
Available (11) | Available (11) |
Available (12) | Available (12) |
*Quorum: 50% or more of total TOC voting members unless excluded due to attendance.
TOC Meeting Info
Technical Oversight Committee meetings are open to the public and held on Wednesdays at 8 AM Eastern Time USA. World Time Zone Map
Zoom 2 Info:
- Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS, or Android: https://zoom.us/j/6540568082
- Or Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location)
- 855 880 1246 (Toll Free), 877 369 0926 (Toll Free)
- Meeting ID: 654 056 8082
- International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/acyy3hylQi
City | Time | Zoom/Audio Bridge |
---|---|---|
UTC-time | Wednesday 12:00 | |
New York (EDT / UTC-4) | Wednesday 08:00 | +1 669 900 6833 +1 646 558 8656 855 880 1246 (Toll Free) 877 369 0926 (Toll Free) Meeting ID: 654 056 8082 |
Paris (CEST / UTC+2) | Wednesday 14:00 | +33 7 5678 4048 +33 1 8288 0188 805 082 588 (Toll Free) Meeting ID: 654 056 8082 |
Beijing (CST / UTC+8) | Wednesday 20:00 | +86 10 87833177 +86 10 53876330 400 616 8835 (Toll Free) 400 669 9381 (Toll Free) Meeting ID: 654 056 8082 |
Tokyo (JST / UTC+9) | Wednesday 21:00 | +81 524 564 439 +81 3 4578 1488 0 800 100 5040 (Toll Free) Meeting ID: 654 056 8082 |
Helsinki (EEST / UTC+3) | Wednesday 15:00 | +358 341092129 Meeting ID: 654 056 8082 |
Anchor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
2019 09
0411
Agenda
- Call for Scribe (minutes owner) Farheen Cefalu
Roll Call & Quorum Check
Company
Contact Name Attendance Alternate Contact Attendance Jack Murray Co-Chair
x
Jinri Huang Co-Chair
x
xDavid Streibl
Masafumi Masuda
O-RANge William Diego
Vincent Danno Viswa Kumar
x *Quorum: 50% or more of total TSC voting members unless excluded due to attendance. We have a quorum and can vote on activities.
- Review and Agree to Minutes of Previous Meeting
- The minutes of the prior meeting were reviewed, and there were no corrections. On motion made by Jinri Huang and seconded by William DIEGO the minutes of the August 28, 2019 meeting were the approved by the TOC members.
- VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
- Review of Today's Agenda
- Jinri - Claudia, new agenda item. WG3 raised an issue and would like to add it to todays agenda. Status Status of Open Action Items (Old Business)
- Action/ Thoralf Czichy read out the status of the issue with signing of the CLA and the open ticket. 2019-09-04: This is now resolved. Not sure where the problem was, but it's likely around companies where there are multiple CLA managers where multiple projects are managed. The whitelisting seems to work. I updated the instructions to properly also describe the case where there's only a CCLA and individual developers do not actually need to sign an additional ICLA. Also added some clarification in some of the steps: delta in "Signing Contributor License Agreement"
- Jun Hyuk Song start the dialogue on the email list regarding the KPI monitoring xApp concern.
- Action/ Claudio Coletti raise the issue of the E2 interface and WG3 schedule with the O-RAN Alliance.
- Action/ John Murray will try to get a representative from each PTL to provide someone to participate in the integration and test team activities.
- Action/ Tracy Van Brakle continue discussion about Plugfest. See where we can do plug and play activities at the MWC North Americas event
- Naming is still a little confusing. China Mobile has some questions on CLA. We have two license. For CLA does the CLA manager have to sign both?
- Yes. Both should be signed.
- It is OK to have two people sign two licenses. The platform is still young and there were challenges signing the CLA
- .
- Action/ John Murray talk to Lusheng
- to user-d3360 about the issues with signing of names on the CLA.
- Action/ Farheen Cefalu add link to other upstream projects such as ONAP on the Release Planning page
- Andrew Grimberg will check with the engineer of whether or not there is an automated process to auto-add the reviewers.
- Action/ John Murray will be working with Farheen Cefalu for the next weeks to coordinate the release schedule.
- Action/ Brian Freeman will send Architecture link to Jack Murray.
- Action/ John Murray will work with Farheen Cefalu
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg will check with the engineer of whether or not there is an automated process to auto-add the reviewers.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg provide documentation and proposal.
- Andrew Grimberg provide documentation and proposal. Action/ Andrew Grimberg
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg
- vet the TOC process with the TOC members.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg provide clear instructions to TOC mail list on how TOC members can get a gerrit account and the process.
- Action/ Tracy Van Brakle OSC Amber PoC ("Plugfest"). We need the TOC to decide how (or if) the Linux Foundation should (or should not) promote this particular LFN event.
- Slides are on the wiki
- China Mobile is sponsoring O-RAN "Plugfest" in parallel with a O-RAN-SC Amber PoC "Plugfest". Do you want to promote the PoC Plugfest? It will be December 2nd. The readout would be December 4th. It will take place as a parallel track with some overlap.
- China Mobile is planning to host the Plugfest in December. Is the PoC Plugfest the same thing?
- This is a proof of concept vs. a plugfest. The O-RAN Alliance plugfest is featuring open fronthaul. We want to compliment that with mPlane.
- China Mobile is planning to host the Plugfest in December. Is the PoC Plugfest the same thing?
- O-RAN Alliance has a particular structure with LF. There is no marketing activity from LF. It is all budgeted to the O-RAN Alliance. They have done some activities in the past. It is conservative because of how it is funded. It is not a simple activity to get the LF to promote or do work around LF activities. Unlike ONAP that has a marketing activity funded around it. We should look at how we can some activity as a promotion of a plugfest. But give more attention to the Amber activities. We should pick this discussion up and we should see where we can do plug and play activities. Most on the A1O1 side and the xApp near Real time RIC. Perhaps the simulator? Does anyone know of an area that will have software at the end of release A?
- We're trying to do a demo for NWC America around the December time frame.
- Non real-time RIC?
- Demo ORAN 5G use cases with PNF Plug in Play. another bulk management data that are 36PP aligned. Show the hybrid architecture vs. heirarchical architecture using ONAP components. One of the first things we did was to use the PoC Plugfest to promote the B release.
- LF and O-RAN Alliance will
- Action/ Farheen Cefalu continue to keep the discussion open next week regarding Plugfest.
- Demo ORAN 5G use cases with PNF Plug in Play. another bulk management data that are 36PP aligned. Show the hybrid architecture vs. heirarchical architecture using ONAP components. One of the first things we did was to use the PoC Plugfest to promote the B release.
- Standing Agenda Items (Brief Status of Ongoing Activities)
- Release Manager/Release Planning: Weekly TOC Scheduling
- Release planning link.
- Action/ PTLs update the email list of where they are at and what progress they have made. Create a brief summary and then we will review the mail with the working groups.
- There is a WG review item. Guidance on the review.
- We will have time between development sprints 1 and 2 to review what sections of software.
- We should put together a clear list of what has been done. Any demos of what is working and a quick discussion on what is planned for the next few releases. Then hand off to O-RAN.
- Written document from each PTL to show the progress that has been made as a review checkpoint. In future releases the demos will be a natural part of the process.
- Next Friday will be our bi-weekly TSC call where each WG and software community TOC should present their progress. It's good to provide a summary of the overall progress. Every two months is when we can report out on significant progress. The milestones of reporting to O-RAN are tied to milestones in the software efforts. Action/ Farheen Cefalu send a message to the PTLs to provide a one page summary of their progress.
- Action/ Farheen Cefalu add B release naming to the Agenda.
- We will have time between development sprints 1 and 2 to review what sections of software.
- Report out from PTL: Stand-Up & Report Out on Blockers
- Non real time RIC (RAN Intelligent Controller) - John Keeney
- Ericsson has ramped up their commitments to 10 developers.
- Difficult to see a clear line of working with ONAP working with O-SC. Concerned about coordination of the 10 developers between ONAP and O-SC. TOC set up a process for upstreaming and project alignment. Becoming difficult to provide a clear description of work items to the developers as the PTL.
- 5G is popular and ONAP wants to contribute. It drives people to participate but it does create confusion and overlap. We need to continue to get clarification. ONAP is not the only non-real time RIC platform that is supported. There are options for others.
- The general discussions have been around the fact that it's an upstream project that will be used in our releases. Clarify what is the platform and what are the services that run on the platform. Some platform evolution has to be related to 5G. This should be a discussion on our October agenda on how we deal with our relationship on our upstream projects.
- Using released versions where possible. We are going to acquire and contribute back to projects such as ONAP. We are looking at a G release when we will be using it. We don't want to sit idly by. We should set up a formal way to approach.
- We need to keep discussing and evolving our relationship.
- Using released versions where possible. We are going to acquire and contribute back to projects such as ONAP. We are looking at a G release when we will be using it. We don't want to sit idly by. We should set up a formal way to approach.
- RIC Applications - Matti Hiltunen
- RIC Platform - Thoralf Czichy
- 2019-09-04: Some legal issues currently prevent us from contributing further to some of the repos. Legal discussion takes time. Solution should come in anything between 1 to 4 weeks. This also affects some of the RIC xApps (MC and UE Manager). Consequences are there will be delays to the RIC platform.
- All contributions or certain elements?
- Certain elements.
- All contributions or certain elements?
- 2019-09-04: Some legal issues currently prevent us from contributing further to some of the repos. Legal discussion takes time. Solution should come in anything between 1 to 4 weeks. This also affects some of the RIC xApps (MC and UE Manager). Consequences are there will be delays to the RIC platform.
- O-RAN Centralized Unit user-a934b
- O-RAN Distributed Unit High Sachin Srivastava
- O-RAN Distributed Unity Low Zhimin Yuan
- O-RAN Radio Unit (TBD)
- Operations and Maintenance - Martin Skorupski
- Simulations - Alex Stancu
- Infrastructure - Xiaohua Zhang
- Orange can not contribute to Release A.
- Linux Edge meetings discussed with Akraino project. We need to put Akraino on the list of the upstream project that we want to have our relationship with.
- Orange can not contribute to Release A.
- DOC - weichen ni
- I don't know how to test the docs structure.
- Non real time RIC (RAN Intelligent Controller) - John Keeney
Test & Integration Planning - Lusheng
- Every company should have one person who participates in the test and integration planning. Companies should designate a representative.
- Requirements Software Architecture Committee - Rittwik
New Agenda Items (New Business): New Items Submitted (+speaker) & Open Call to TOC For Additional Items
- Action/Claudio Coletti WG3 raising a concern of prospect of E2 release by OSC.
- We decided to postpone our first release. Release A targets November which is not aligned with O-RAN perspective with WG3. It is important to guarantee WG3 is captured in the E2 implementation release. We are not cross checking the progress.
- Challenges with moving the software forward because we are early in the process. Agree that we should come up with terminology and activity but we should not slow down the progress.
- There will be something that looks like E2 before O-RAN Alliance publishes.
- We're thinking of having an O-RAN Alliance demo and not sure how to take care of this issue. It is coming from O-RAN Alliance.
- I am concerned about the November release and what it will look like to E2 specs. Will we have public MACD and pre-spec.
- Action/ Claudio Coletti raise the issue with O-RAN Alliance.
- Jun Hyuk Song we don't know about message types and what kind of information elements it carries. It is a serious problem. I hope WG3 can look at the pre E2 spec to get feedback.
- Each project has its own documentation.
- They don't have documentation
- There is document floating around but it is not in public repos yet because of legal issues.
- Eventually when the document is public it will elaborate the details
- They don't have documentation
- We have to trust that WG3 is going to work through the issues.
- Each project has its own documentation.
- KPI monitor xApp. We need to know E2 message. We are making up our own. We need to have a pre-spec which is the only way to minimize issues between WG3.
- Action/ Farheen Cefalu add this to our agenda but this is a part of the software architecture issue.
- Action/ Jun Hyuk Song start the dialogue on the email list.
- Challenges with moving the software forward because we are early in the process. Agree that we should come up with terminology and activity but we should not slow down the progress.
- We decided to postpone our first release. Release A targets November which is not aligned with O-RAN perspective with WG3. It is important to guarantee WG3 is captured in the E2 implementation release. We are not cross checking the progress.
- Action/ John Murray 3GPP discussion
- Action/Claudio Coletti WG3 raising a concern of prospect of E2 release by OSC.
- Any Other Business (AOB)
- Meeting Summary (resolutions, new action items, etc.)
- Farheen Cefalu send a message to the PTLs to provide a one page summary of their progress in the last four weeks to the TOC mailing lists.
- Action/ John Murray discuss the B release name.
- Action/ John Murray 3GPP discussion
- Standing Agenda Items (Brief Status of Ongoing Activities)
- Release Manager/Release Planning: Weekly TOC Scheduling
- Release planning link.
- Report out from PTL: Stand-Up & Report Out on Blockers
- Non real time RIC (RAN Intelligent Controller) - John Keeney
- RIC Applications - Matti Hiltunen
- RIC Platform - Thoralf Czichy
- O-RAN Centralized Unit user-a934b
- O-RAN Distributed Unit High Sachin Srivastava
- O-RAN Distributed Unity Low Zhimin Yuan
- O-RAN Radio Unit (TBD)
- Operations and Maintenance - Martin Skorupski
- Simulations - Alex Stancu
- Infrastructure - Xiaohua Zhang
- DOC - weichen ni
Test & Integration Planning - Lusheng
- Requirements Software Architecture Committee - Rittwik
New Agenda Items (New Business): New Items Submitted (+speaker) & Open Call to TOC For Additional Items
- Any Other Business (AOB)
- Meeting Summary (resolutions, new action items, etc.)
Anchor | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
2019 09 04
Zoom meeting: 2019-09-04_tsc.mp4
Agenda
- Call for Scribe (minutes owner) Farheen Cefalu
Roll Call & Quorum Check
Company
Contact Name Attendance Alternate Contact Attendance Jack Murray Co-Chair
x
Jinri Huang Co-Chair
x David Streibl
Masafumi Masuda
O-RANge William Diego
x Vincent Danno Viswa Kumar
x *Quorum: 50% or more of total TSC voting members unless excluded due to attendance. We have a quorum and can vote on activities.
- Review and Agree to Minutes of Previous Meeting
- The minutes of the prior meeting were reviewed, and there were no corrections. On motion made by Jinri Huang and seconded by William DIEGO the minutes of the August 28, 2019 meeting were the approved by the TOC members.
- VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
- The minutes of the prior meeting were reviewed, and there were no corrections. On motion made by Jinri Huang and seconded by William DIEGO the minutes of the August 28, 2019 meeting were the approved by the TOC members.
- Review of Today's Agenda
- Jinri - Claudia, new agenda item. WG3 raised an issue and would like to add it to todays agenda.
- Status of Open Action Items (Old Business)
Action/ Thoralf Czichy read out the status of the issue with signing of the CLA and the open ticket. 2019-09-04: This is now resolved. Not sure where the problem was, but it's likely around companies where there are multiple CLA managers where multiple projects are managed. The whitelisting seems to work. I updated the instructions to properly also describe the case where there's only a CCLA and individual developers do not actually need to sign an additional ICLA. Also added some clarification in some of the steps: delta in "Signing Contributor License Agreement"- Naming is still a little confusing.
- China Mobile has some questions on CLA. We have two license. For CLA does the CLA manager have to sign both?
- Yes. Both should be signed.
- It is OK to have two people sign two licenses.
- The platform is still young and there were challenges signing the CLA.
- Action/ John Murray talk to user-d3360 about the issues with signing of names on the CLA.
Action/ Farheen Cefalu add link to other upstream projects such as ONAP on the Release Planning page.- Action/ John Murray will be working with Farheen Cefalu for the next weeks to coordinate the release schedule.
Action/ Brian Freeman will send Architecture link to Jack Murray.- Action/ John Murray will work with Farheen Cefalu
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg will check with the engineer of whether or not there is an automated process to auto-add the reviewers.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg provide documentation and proposal.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg vet the TOC process with the TOC members.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg provide clear instructions to TOC mail list on how TOC members can get a gerrit account and the process.
- Action/ Tracy Van Brakle OSC Amber PoC ("Plug-fest"). We need the TOC to decide how (or if) the Linux Foundation should (or should not) promote this particular LFN event.
- Slides are on the wiki
- China Mobile is sponsoring O-RAN "Plug-fest" in parallel with a O-RAN-SC Amber PoC "Plug-fest". Do you want to promote the PoC Plug-fest? It will be December 2nd. The readout would be December 4th. It will take place as a parallel track with some overlap.
- China Mobile is planning to host the Plug-fest in December. Is the PoC Plug-fest the same thing?
- This is a proof of concept vs. a Plug-fest. The O-RAN Alliance Plug-fest is featuring open front-haul. We want to compliment that with mPlane.
- China Mobile is planning to host the Plug-fest in December. Is the PoC Plug-fest the same thing?
- O-RAN Alliance has a particular structure with LF. There is no marketing activity from LF. It is all budgeted to the O-RAN Alliance. They have done some activities in the past. It is conservative because of how it is funded. It is not a simple activity to get the LF to promote or do work around LF activities. Unlike ONAP that has a marketing activity funded around it. We should look at how we can some activity as a promotion of a plugfest. But give more attention to the Amber activities. We should pick this discussion up and we should see where we can do plug and play activities. Most on the A1O1 side and the xApp near Real time RIC. Perhaps the simulator? Does anyone know of an area that will have software at the end of release A?
- We're trying to do a demo for NWC America around the December time frame.
- Non real-time RIC?
- Demo ORAN 5G use cases with PNF Plug in Play. Another demo, bulk management data that are 36PP aligned. Show the hybrid architecture vs. hierarchical architecture using ONAP components. One of the first things we did was to use the PoC Plugfest to promote the B release.
- LF and O-RAN Alliance will
Action/ Farheen Cefalu continue to keep the discussion open next week regarding Plugfest.
- Demo ORAN 5G use cases with PNF Plug in Play. Another demo, bulk management data that are 36PP aligned. Show the hybrid architecture vs. hierarchical architecture using ONAP components. One of the first things we did was to use the PoC Plugfest to promote the B release.
- Standing Agenda Items (Brief Status of Ongoing Activities)
- Release Manager/Release Planning: Weekly TOC Scheduling
- Release planning link.
- PTLs update the email list of where they are at and what progress they have made. Create a brief summary and then we will review the mail with the working groups.
- There is a WG review item. What is your expectation? How should we facilitate that? I was going to request the WG co chair to cross check. Can you give us some guidance? Guidance on the review.
- We will have time between development sprints 1 and 2 to review what sections of software.
- We should put together a clear list of what has been done. Any demos of what is working and a quick discussion on what is planned for the next few releases. Then hand off to O-RAN.
- Written document from each PTL to show the progress that has been made as a review checkpoint. In future releases the demos will be a natural part of the process.
- Next Friday will be our bi-weekly TSC call where each WG and software community TOC should present their progress. It's good to provide a summary of the overall progress. Every two months is when we can report out on significant progress. The milestones of reporting to O-RAN are tied to milestones in the software efforts. Action/ Farheen Cefalu send a message to the PTLs to provide a one page summary of their progress.
- Action/ Farheen Cefalu add B release naming to the Agenda.
- We will have time between development sprints 1 and 2 to review what sections of software.
- Report out from PTL: Stand-Up & Report Out on Blockers
- Non real time RIC (RAN Intelligent Controller) - John Keeney
- Ericsson has ramped up their commitments to 10 developers.
- Difficult to see a clear line of working with ONAP working with O-SC. Concerned about coordination of the 10 developers between ONAP and O-SC. TOC set up a process for upstreaming and project alignment. Becoming difficult to provide a clear description of work items to the developers as the PTL.
- 5G is popular and ONAP wants to contribute. It drives people to participate but it does create confusion and overlap. We need to continue to get clarification. ONAP is not the only non-real time RIC platform that is supported. There are options for others.
- The general discussions have been around the fact that it's an upstream project that will be used in our releases. Clarify what is the platform and what are the services that run on the platform. Some platform evolution has to be related to 5G. This should be a discussion on our October agenda on how we deal with our relationship on our upstream projects.
- Using released versions where possible. We are going to acquire and contribute back to projects such as ONAP. We are looking at a G release when we will be using it. We don't want to sit idly by. We should set up a formal way to approach.
- We need to keep discussing and evolving our relationship.
- Using released versions where possible. We are going to acquire and contribute back to projects such as ONAP. We are looking at a G release when we will be using it. We don't want to sit idly by. We should set up a formal way to approach.
- RIC Applications - Matti Hiltunen
- RIC Platform - Thoralf Czichy
- 2019-09-04: Some legal issues currently prevent us from contributing further to some of the RIC Platform repos. Legal discussion takes time. Solution should come in anything between 1 to 4 weeks delays. This also effects some of the RIC xApps (MC and UE Manager). Consequences are there will be delays in the original plans to the RIC platform.
- All contributions or certain elements of RIC Platform?
- Certain elements.
- All contributions or certain elements of RIC Platform?
- 2019-09-04: Some legal issues currently prevent us from contributing further to some of the RIC Platform repos. Legal discussion takes time. Solution should come in anything between 1 to 4 weeks delays. This also effects some of the RIC xApps (MC and UE Manager). Consequences are there will be delays in the original plans to the RIC platform.
- O-RAN Centralized Unit user-a934b
- O-RAN Distributed Unit High Sachin Srivastava
- O-RAN Distributed Unity Low Zhimin Yuan
- O-RAN Radio Unit (TBD)
- Operations and Maintenance - Martin Skorupski
- Simulations - Alex Stancu
- Infrastructure - Xiaohua Zhang
- Talked to INSPUR according to Orange due to resource issues can not contribute to Release A.
- When Jack was at the LF OSS Linux Edge meetings discussed with Akraino project. For the infrastructure project we need to put Akraino on the list of the upstream project that we want to have our relationship with.
- Talked to INSPUR according to Orange due to resource issues can not contribute to Release A.
- DOC - weichen ni
- I don't know how to test the docs structure. I don't know how to set up the templates or the documentation structure. How can I see if my docs works?
- Non real time RIC (RAN Intelligent Controller) - John Keeney
Test & Integration Planning - Lusheng
- Every company should have one person who participates in the test and integration planning. Companies should designate one person / representative as a part of that team. Action/ John Murray will try to get a representative from each PTL to provide someone to participate in the integration and test team.
- Requirements Software Architecture Committee - Rittwik
- We have started the B release epics. Encourage people to leave comments. Reminder October meeting with the working groups.
New Agenda Items (New Business): New Items Submitted (+speaker) & Open Call to TOC For Additional Items
Action/Claudio Coletti WG3 raising a concern of prospect of E2 release by OSC.- In WG3, due to slow progress, we decided to postpone our first release of the E2 specs of the E2 interface. Information elements being captured and information model. Release A targets November as release date which is not aligned with O-RAN perspective in WG3. Concerned about misalignment. As a WG co-chair it is important to guarantee WG3 is captured in the E2 implementation open release. We are not cross checking the progress. Externally we should highlight WG3 is not going to deliver the E2.
- Challenges with moving the software forward and standards because we are early in the process. Most of what we are doing in Release A is pre-specification. We need to find the challenges in building something new.
- Perception of something that looks like E2 prior to ORAN release.
- There will be something that looks like E2 before O-RAN Alliance publishes.
- Agree that we (TOC) should come up with terminology and activity but we should not slow down the progress.
- We will not slow down in activities. Concerned about the public perception of the disconnect.
- We're thinking of having an O-RAN Alliance demo and not sure how to take care of this issue. It is coming from O-RAN Alliance.
- I am not concerned about the demo. I am concerned about the November release and what it will look like compared to what the E2 specs. Will we have public MACD and pre-spec.
- The documentation project can make E2 pre-spec.
- Jack - We need clarification on terminology from O-RAN Alliance. There will always be something that may not be conforming to spec. We have to figure out terminology O-RAN Alliance wants us to use. The TOC needs to take up with O-RAN Alliance leadership and come up with an agreement.
- Action/ Claudio Coletti raise the issue with O-RAN Alliance. What is O-RAN supposed to do. How it should be published.
- Jun Hyuk Song we don't know about message types and what kind of information elements it carries. It is a serious concern. I hope WG3 can look at the pre E2 spec to give us blessing or feedback.
- Each project has its own documentation.
- They don't have documentation and that is why I am raising a concern.
- RIC Platform PTL: This is effected by legal issues. There is a document floating around with WG3 but it is not in public repos yet because of legal issues.
- Communicate clearly that it is pre-specification and get it approved by legal.
- Eventually when the document is public will it contain elaborate details? Yes, we will elaborate the details
- They don't have documentation and that is why I am raising a concern.
- We have to trust that WG3 is going to work through the issues. For us how we set up compliance with implementation of E2 with a mappable plugin structure.
- Each project has its own documentation.
- KPI monitor xApp concern. We need to know E2 subscription message. We don't have any information on it. We are making up our own. We need to have a pre-spec which is the only way to minimize issues between O-SC and WG3.
Action/Farheen Cefalu add this to our agenda but this is a part of the software architecture issue.- Action/ Jun Hyuk Song start the dialogue on the email list regarding the KPI monitoring xApp concern.
- I am not concerned about the demo. I am concerned about the November release and what it will look like compared to what the E2 specs. Will we have public MACD and pre-spec.
- Challenges with moving the software forward and standards because we are early in the process. Most of what we are doing in Release A is pre-specification. We need to find the challenges in building something new.
- In WG3, due to slow progress, we decided to postpone our first release of the E2 specs of the E2 interface. Information elements being captured and information model. Release A targets November as release date which is not aligned with O-RAN perspective in WG3. Concerned about misalignment. As a WG co-chair it is important to guarantee WG3 is captured in the E2 implementation open release. We are not cross checking the progress. Externally we should highlight WG3 is not going to deliver the E2.
- Action/ John Murray 3GPP discussion
- Any Other Business (AOB)
2019 08 28
Zoom meeting: 2019-08-28-toc.mp4
Agenda
- Call for Scribe (minutes owner) Farheen Cefalu (AT&T)
- Review and Agree to Minutes of Previous Meeting
- The minutes of the prior meeting were reviewed, and there were no corrections. On motion made by user-2057e and seconded by William DIEGO the minutes of the August 21, 2019 meeting were the approved by the TOC members.
- VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
- The minutes of the prior meeting were reviewed, and there were no corrections. On motion made by user-2057e and seconded by William DIEGO the minutes of the August 21, 2019 meeting were the approved by the TOC members.
- Review of Today's Agenda
- Status of Open Action Items (Old Business)
Action/ Farheen Cefalu correct audio recording of previous minutes.Action/ Thoralf Czichy open a ticket with LF regarding your issues with CLA instructions. Or email Trishan de Lanerolle directly.- Issues are related to CLA. Lusheng - Companies are having problems signing the O-RAN CLA. When our contributors try to sign they see their company already listed due to previous signing of ONAP CLA. Most companies have already gone thru the process with ONAP. They see their company already listed because of previous signing of ONAP. When a CLA manager who has already signed the document for ONAP uses the CLA tool they get a message that their company has not signed with O-RAN. This can be resolved by having the company sign both O-RAN and ONAP CLAs by the same legal entity or have LF support the process to accept a signature that has previously signed the ONAP CLA.
- Trishan - We have been working the issue.
- Thoralf - We had discussion with Jacob. Seems to work to the extent that the CLA manager can add individual emails to the white list. Issue is progress. White list requirement is signing of CLA. Keeping the ticket open until we confirm it works.
- Jinri - Lusheng has written a tutorial on the CLA but it is only for a sunny day scenario.
- Action/ Thoralf Czichy read out the status of the issue with signing of the CLA and the open ticket.
- Issues are related to CLA. Lusheng - Companies are having problems signing the O-RAN CLA. When our contributors try to sign they see their company already listed due to previous signing of ONAP CLA. Most companies have already gone thru the process with ONAP. They see their company already listed because of previous signing of ONAP. When a CLA manager who has already signed the document for ONAP uses the CLA tool they get a message that their company has not signed with O-RAN. This can be resolved by having the company sign both O-RAN and ONAP CLAs by the same legal entity or have LF support the process to accept a signature that has previously signed the ONAP CLA.
- Action/ Farheen Cefalu add link to other upstream projects such as ONAP on the Release Planning page.
- Action/ Brian Freeman will send Architecture link to Jack Murray.
Action/ Farheen Cefalu update the navigation bar and the TOC page.Action/ user-d3360 post the recorded test and integration team meetings on the wiki.Action/Farheen Cefalu take a look at email from yesterday to main@list regarding the Events page. Encouraged to register.- Will the meetings in Costa Rica be available remotely?
- Yes.
- Will the meetings in Costa Rica be available remotely?
Action/ user-d3360 discuss new Linux Foundation process for repo/committer management using an INFO.yaml file at TOC.- LF is stream lining the process by updating the INFO.yml file added to the root of each repo. We need TOC support to switch to the new operating procedure. Trishan and Andy can support us with the new automated procedure.
- Andrew Grimberg - Info.yml is how to see who the committers on the project are. Current schema was worked on for six months. The initial schema was built out last year long before O-RAN. Info.yml is simple file that defines the repo who the committers are and regular meeting info and mailing lists. Well defined schema. Automation - self automation for committers. Committers can vote amongst themselves and notify the TOC and can allow committers to self commit and add the governing body as well. We have a job on jenkins that checks if there are enough people to vote such as plus 1 and plus 2 and quorum before it can be merged. Back end gives committer rites. Not quite ready with the automation yet.
- Thoralf - How can TOC approval be done?
- committer voting is plus one and plus two.
- repo creation will hold the initial seed info.yml files and the TOC will be able to vote.
- How will the TOC approval for committers be done?
- The TOC approvers will be able to do the plus one in gerrit. This is in beta.
- What about multiple sub-repos?
- Each repo will have to have this info.yml file. Heirarchical inheritance is not viable in github so add a info.yml file at the root of every repo including sub-repos.
- Lets say verify job passes do we need to explicitly add the committers or will the system auto-add the reviewers?
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg will check with the engineer of whether or not the automated process to auto-add the reviewers.
- When will it be ready?
- Technically it is being used now. Chris Lott made a push to get most of the info.yml files but there is no documentation. Documentation has to be added.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg provide documentation and proposal.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg vet the TOC process with the TOC members.
- Issue with TOC members who don't log into gerrit. Not difficult but the TOC have logged in at least once.
- Martin Skorupski - Having issues with invalid info.yml file.
- Send it directly to Andrew Grimberg
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg provide clear instructions on how TOC members how to get a gerrit account and the process through email list.
- Thoralf - How can TOC approval be done?
- Andrew Grimberg - Info.yml is how to see who the committers on the project are. Current schema was worked on for six months. The initial schema was built out last year long before O-RAN. Info.yml is simple file that defines the repo who the committers are and regular meeting info and mailing lists. Well defined schema. Automation - self automation for committers. Committers can vote amongst themselves and notify the TOC and can allow committers to self commit and add the governing body as well. We have a job on jenkins that checks if there are enough people to vote such as plus 1 and plus 2 and quorum before it can be merged. Back end gives committer rites. Not quite ready with the automation yet.
- LF is stream lining the process by updating the INFO.yml file added to the root of each repo. We need TOC support to switch to the new operating procedure. Trishan and Andy can support us with the new automated procedure.
Action/ user-59b16 discuss MWC americas 2019 demo plan- Demo got gate 1 approval.
- Pending booth approval.
- Thoralf check with Ramsey for approval.
- Thoralf - I sent him a reminder.
- Rittwik - it is an urgent request.
- Jinri - next meeting is September 9. Paul will bring this.
- Standing Agenda Items (Brief Status of Ongoing Activities)
- Release Manager/Release Planning: Weekly TOC Scheduling
- Release planning link.
- Ganesh (Radisys) - assistance with Jira access for Sachin?
- Lusheng - I can assist.
- Ganesh (Radisys) - assistance with Jira access for Sachin?
- Report out from PTL: Stand-Up & Report Out on Blockers
- Non real time RIC (RAN Intelligent Controller) - John Keeney
- We are struggling with multiple java versions. Such as ONAP is running with java 8 and O-RAN is running with java 7. This may be an issue for the test and integration planning.
- Lusheng - Let's discuss at test meeting. We will try to provide base doc image layers to unify the platform but not prepared to do this in release Amber.
- We are struggling with multiple java versions. Such as ONAP is running with java 8 and O-RAN is running with java 7. This may be an issue for the test and integration planning.
- RIC Applications - Matti Hiltunen
- RIC Platform - Thoralf Czichy
- Add committer request for Hila Anina ric-plt/nodeb-rnib. On motion made by Thoralf Czichy and seconded by user-2057e
- VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
- Add committer request for Hila Anina ric-plt/nodeb-rnib. On motion made by Thoralf Czichy and seconded by user-2057e
- O-RAN Centralized Unit user-a934b
- O-RAN Distributed Unit High Sachin Srivastava
- O-RAN Distributed Unity Low Zhimin Yuan
- O-RAN Radio Unit (TBD)
- Operations and Maintenance - Martin Skorupski
- Simulations - Alex Stancu
- Infrastructure - Xiaohua Zhang
- DOC - weichen ni
- Non real time RIC (RAN Intelligent Controller) - John Keeney
Test & Integration Planning - Lusheng
- Sonar reporting issue. No longer blocked.
- Thoralf - We are blocked for two weeks but it is complicated.
- Andrew is OK with getting the repo in pieces. Include Thoralf.
- Thoralf - We are blocked for two weeks but it is complicated.
- Sonar reporting issue. No longer blocked.
- Requirements Software Architecture Committee - Rittwik
New Agenda Items (New Business): New Items Submitted (+speaker) & Open Call to TOC For Additional Items
- An AP from Executive Committee: to evaluate & identify any content during our SW development requiring 3GPP's permission and, to estimate when it needs interaction with 3GPP;
- Jinri - 3GPP copyrite issue. during software development for O-CU some content such as a table from 3GPP specs. Table is from 3GPP spec. Before implementing this code it needs to be approved by 3GPP. Jack brought this to EC. Two ways. Treat this issue case by case. EC to EGPP. O-RAN Alliance is seeking an umbrella agreement with 3GPP that will cover all the cases.
- Development focus member will have a general discussion. Evaluate and identify content that requires 3GPP conditions. We do have a lot. If so we have issues.
- What does 3GPP permission mean?
- Lets say we have modulation scheme index (table) will be defined in 3GPP. We need to implement something with this table then we need the copy-rite permission from 3GPP to permission.
- This is pre-spec. Concerned that we will have to get permission from every table on a case by case basis.
- Team is investigating an umbrella agreement to simplify the process.
- What does 3GPP permission mean?
- Development focus member will have a general discussion. Evaluate and identify content that requires 3GPP conditions. We do have a lot. If so we have issues.
- Any Other Business (AOB)Jinri will talk to Jack about covering progress as well as blockers from the PTLs. Suggestion to make it monthly or use release milestones.
- Meeting Summary (resolutions, new action items, etc.)
- Votes
- The minutes of the prior meeting were reviewed, and there were no corrections. On motion made
by user-2057e and seconded by William DIEGO the - by Jinri Huang and seconded by William DIEGO the minutes of the August
21- 28, 2019 meeting were the approved by
the TOC members. - VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
- the TOC members.
- VOTE: Vote taken, item
passed.- the TOC members.
- passed.
- Actions
- Action/ Jun Hyuk Song start the dialogue on the email list regarding the KPI monitoring xApp concern.
- Action/ Claudio Coletti raise the issue of the E2 interface and WG3 schedule with the O-RAN Alliance.
- Action/ John Murray continue discussion about Plugfest.
- Action/ John Murray talk to user-d3360 about the issues with signing of names on the CLA
- Actions
- Action/ Thoralf Czichy read out the status of the issue with signing of the CLA and the open ticket.
- Action/ John Murray will be working with Farheen Cefalu add link to other upstream projects such as ONAP on the Release Planning page.Action/ Brian Freeman will send Architecture link to Jack Murray for the next weeks to coordinate the release schedule with upstream projects.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg will check with the engineer of whether or not the there is an automated process to auto-add the reviewers.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg provide documentation and proposal.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg vet the TOC process with the TOC members.
- Action/ Andrew Grimberg provide clear instructions to TOC mail list on how TOC members can get a gerrit account and the process.
- Action/ Farheen Cefalu send a message to the PTLs to provide a one page summary of their progress in the last four weeks to the TOC mailing lists.
- Action/ John Murray discuss B release naming convention.
- Action/ John Murray 3GPP discussion
- Votes
Roll Call & Quorum Check
Company
Jack Murray Co-Chair
Jinri Huang Co-Chair
David Streibl
Masafumi Masuda
William Diego
Viswa Kumar
*Quorum: 50% or more of total TSC voting members unless excluded due to attendance. We have a quorum and can vote on activities.