Versions Compared

Old Version 8

changes.mady.by.user Trevor Cooper

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Frank Brockners

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

2. What are the three top areas where you feel your project should focus and invest? (Examples:  Growing the community, infrastructure improvements, gaining adoption)

  • CNTT ... reference implementations and compliance frameworks, etc.

...

  • Serve and grow the community
    • Grow awareness of OPNFV work and making sure we are delivering what carriers need.

...

    •  
    • Collaborate with vendors and all stakeholders to ensure we are focused on areas of importance to them.

...

    • Track use of OPNFV

...

    • artifacts (infrastructure, test cases, etc.) both with upstream communities and commercial entities.

...

    • Convince member companies

...

    • to invest and

...

    • prioritize developer resources
    • When considering new projects for LF, avoid direct competition with existing ones (like OPNFV).
  • Refocus what we deliver and refresh tools
    • Modularity, loosely couple components, re-usable components: We’ve had two types of deliverables in the past: Scenarios (as “fully tested integrated solution stacks”) and Tools (to conduct that testing). While scenarios have been the focus, it is tools that have survived. Functest, NFVbench, Barometer, Dovetail, … If those would have been even more generic and reusable, we’d have greater reach.
    • To achieve Modularity, encourage the various tools to evolve toward more common architecture. Defining an OPNFV target architecture would help, in areas where agreement is possible.
    • Evolve to modern tool chains – cloud based solutions which are easy to leverage and replicate.
  • Drive closer collaboration between LFN projects and communities – drive community building around sub-projects which are naturally associated, e.g. for OPNFV that would be OPNFV – ONAP Integration, MultiVIM/Cloud, etc.


3. What community asks have not been completed in a reasonable and timely manner?

  • Replacing the PM (now solved)
  • Organizing a developer event an Kubecon 
  • Infra support in different time zones. Currently, if something breaks while the US is sleeping, we need to wait around 5 hours for a response. Given that more than half of the community is not in the US this seems a fair thing to ask. LFN was going to hire somebody in Asia, did that happen?
  • Modernize the OPNFV infra. even though we put aside significant budget for that
  • Other?


4. Strategic relationships and interaction with other Projects (inside and outside LFN)

  • Which projects are up and/or downstream for your project?
    • OpenStack
    • ODL
    • TF
    • Kubernetes
    • OVS
    • VPP
    • DPDK
    • etc.
  • What collaboration / interaction with other projects is working well?
    • OpenStack
    • Openstack Edge Computing Group
    • Airship (re. CNTT)
    • ODL
    • OSM collaboration with SFC (currently not active)
    • other?
  • What collaboration / interaction (existing or desired) with other projects is not working well or is a gap?
    • Akraino
    • ONAP
    • TF
    • other?
    • In general, collaboration with all other LFN projects is poor in practice, i.e., anything beyond high-level discussions
  • What collaboration / interaction would your project benefit from that is not already happening?
    • CNTT/GSMA (spinning up)
    • Akraino
    • ONAP
    • TF (switch performance tools)
    • Kubernetes networking - Multus, DanM, Calico, etc.
    • other?
  • How do you suggest improving collaboration / interaction with other projects?
    • Collaboration must be a natural fit and mutually beneficial to work
    • Education as to benefits of collaboration (specifics)
    • Cross-TSC presentations
    • other?
  • How/What should we drive for collaboration with projects outside LFN that would be beneficial?
    • Open source software (OSS) (examples:  CNCF, LF Edge, Hyperledger, Openstack, ONF, etc.)
      • CNCF, OpenStack, LFEdge (Akraino, ...)
      • other?
    • Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) (examples: O-RAN, ETSI NFV, GSMA, 3GPP, ETSI ZSM, etc.)
      • GSMA (CNTT)
      • ETSI NFV - TST WG (testing methodologies for CNTT)
      • ETSI-OSM
      • other?
    • Analytics, ML, AI: Collaborating with LF-Deep would be beneficial to OPNFV
    • Other? 


5. Would a more integrated solution approach increase or accelerate a more effective adoption of LFN technologies?

  • Question needs clarification, there are 2 different types of responses ... 
    • more integration of LFN technologies is
    always good to show
    • good and so more integration is the way to go
    • Close integration is not the way to get broader interest and reach. Small re-usable and easily composable pieces is what quite often gives you reach. That way, people can grow their own solutions based on OSS components. Tightly integrated systems lead to a situation where it either “fits your needs” or “does not fit your needs” – and the latter is more common. Look at Unix. Unix is a tool box of loosely coupled components that can easily be combined. OPNFV could be more a tool box for composition and testing than an effort to build the one and only stack.
  • OPNFV has been OPNFV is an integration project and is uniquely positioned for LFN technologies to be integrated and tested together
  • OPNFV could become the "shop window" for LFN technologies
  • Initiatives with important industry goals like CNTT should naturally result in more integration between LFN projects. This is a preferable way to increase industry adoption.



6. The LFN TAC made recommendations on increased efficiencies for LFN project infrastructure. (Link:  Infrastructure Working Group Summary Report)  Are there other areas of project operations that you would like to see the TAC look into?

  • Release planning
  • Tracking milestones and visibility of projects
  • The TAC should consider what value it adds and help the community understand it
  • Common tools across projects helps – like linked Jiras etc. TAC is the appropriate body to prepare for those decisions
  • other?


7. Is commercial compliance (OVP) relevant to your project? If yes then how does your project plan on contributing?

  • Yes
  • OPNFV developed OVP including governance and process framework (CVC), test framework (Dovetail) and test tools / test cases (Functest, Yardstick, etc.)
  • OPNFV is contributing to LFN level compliance program (NFVi and VNF compliance) through Dovetail and LFN compliance committee
  • If OVP expands its scope to CNTT reference-implementation validation, OPNFV has bigger role to play in terms of performance testing
  • From an FDS perspective, OVP is not immediately relevant. OVP might use NFVbench moving forward (as part of CNTT)


8. Do you have an activity lifecycle framework within your project?

...

9. Does your project need help to focus on highest priorities?

  • Yes, OPNFV needs to attract more developers back to the community as most code commits are contributed by few developers
  • Need strong messaging to create interest and communicate OPNFV relevance to broader community as the work refocuses
  • Make case for member companies to invest development resources (campaign to reinvigorate through marketing and direct relationships with stakeholders and member companies)

  • I don’t think OPNFV needs help to “focus”. OPNFV needs attention, proper marketing, and increased contributions.


10. Is there a question that we missed that we should have asked but didn't?

...