#opnfv-meeting: Weekly Technical Discussion

Meeting summary

1. Roll Call (bh526r, 14:02:01)
   1. Bin Hu (bh526r, 14:02:06)
   2. radez (radez, 14:02:27)
   3. Uli (uli-k, 14:02:29)
   4. Jack Morgan (jmorgan1, 14:02:34)
   5. Randy Levensalor (RandyLevensalor, 14:02:35)
   
   
2. New Project Proposal "Sample VNF" (bh526r, 14:04:17)
   1. https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Proposal%3A+samplevnf (bh526r, 14:04:35)
   2. Kannan introduced the project proposal (bh526r, 14:05:00)
   3. The key is that not only the VNF catalog and VNF, but also the source code of VNFs (bh526r, 14:09:15)
   4. Uli said that it is very important to have VNFs for our testing (bh526r, 14:09:39)
   5. What is the difference between commercial VNF and sample VNF/testing VNF (bh526r, 14:10:10)
   6. Kannan responded that commercial VNF has production quality, but sample/testing VNF has feature-complete, but may not be production quality (bh526r, 14:11:00)
   7. So we focus on feature-complete, not on production quality (bh526r, 14:11:50)
   8. Brian gave an example - data plane complete, but may not complete in control plane such as HA (bh526r, 14:14:06)
   9. Uli suggested to clarify it in the project proposal in wiki, ie. feature complete in data plane, but may not complete in control plane (bh526r, 14:14:59)
   10. Kannan will add a sentence in wiki "VNF may not be deployable in real network environment" (bh526r, 14:16:04)
   11. I think we can be feature complete on data plane, have a good coverage even on user plane, but for control plane and management plane, we will implement only a minimum of features. (bh526r, 14:17:25)
   12. plan is for the license to be Apache or BSD (bjskerry, 14:18:54)
   13. will need to comply with OPNFV guidance (bjskerry, 14:19:44)
   14. currently the VNFs are Apache 2.0 (bjskerry, 14:20:13)
   15. will be hosting complete source code (bjskerry, 14:20:38)
   16. Julien (Julien-z_, 14:22:27)
   17. Bryan wanted to clarify that we don't intend to test the VNF itself for its real conformance, e.g. with any standards. (bh526r, 14:26:22)
   18. Kannan said performance testing is our of scope. (bh526r, 14:28:16)
   19. example of vPE, we won't test conformance to the standard, but could use them for end to end testing, including SFC if applicable (bjskerry, 14:28:30)
   20. Dave said it is very vital project, and key to moving forward to next stage (bh526r, 14:30:09)
   21. add two sentences (1) no conformance testing (2) no field deployment (bh526r, 14:32:02)
   22. Morgan wanted more community support from other companies and other contributors (bh526r, 14:35:02)
   23. People are encouraged to join the project (bh526r, 14:35:30)
   24. Group achieved consensus to recommend for TSC creation review by addressing 3 issues (1) clarify feature-completeness v.s. production quality, and for testing purpose instead of commerical purpose (2) no conformance testing (3) no field deployment (bh526r, 14:39:02)
   25. Apache License will be used. (bh526r, 14:40:10)
   26. Kannan clarified that it is not limited to DPDK. Initial implementation is based on DPDK. But other contributions without DPDK is very welcome (bh526r, 14:41:49)
   27. And of course, it includes vIMS. And contributions are very welcome. (bh526r, 14:42:16)
   28. Code for SampleVNFs does not have to be hosted by OPNFV, ie if source code is available elswhere it could be used (bjskerry, 14:45:22)
   
   
3. MANO WG Update (bh526r, 14:48:48)
   1. rprakash (rprakash, 14:50:53)
   2. https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827111 (rprakash, 14:51:22)
   3. https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/mano/MANO+Group+Home (bh526r, 14:51:38)
   4. MANO WG has done a great job, performed its operation regularly, and set a series of action items to address scenarios, use cases, etc. (bh526r, 14:59:47)

Action items

1. (none)

People present (lines said)

1. bh526r (29)
2. Julien-z_ (10)
3. bjskerry (6)
4. collabot` (3)
5. rprakash (2)
6. uli-k (2)
7. RandyLevensalor (1)
8. radez (1)
9. xuanjia (1)
10. jmorgan1 (1)