19:01:54 #startmeeting telcowg 19:01:55 Meeting started Wed Jul 8 19:01:54 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is sgordon. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:01:56 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 19:01:58 The meeting name has been set to 'telcowg' 19:02:05 sorry we ran a little late sgordon! 19:02:08 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nfv-meeting-agenda 19:02:09 Thanks! 19:02:10 np 19:02:12 #topic roll call 19:02:15 yo folks 19:02:22 who is here for the telco working group meeting 19:02:25 hi 19:02:34 hi ralfT 19:02:51 * sgordon scans the sidebar for the usual suspects 19:03:09 this could be quick ;) 19:03:21 i hope not... 19:03:36 i've one question 19:03:59 sure, i have a list of stuff to reel off 19:04:05 but let's start with your Q 19:04:32 it's about service chaining 19:04:45 #topic service chaining 19:05:20 which framework should we use to describe SFC: the IETF wording or the ETSI (==OPNFV) wording 19:05:20 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/169201/ 19:05:30 well there is a religious discussion 19:05:46 to be honest, im not sure 19:06:04 i use both in the SFC use case - this is causing some confusion 19:06:10 right 19:06:33 i *suspect* using the ETSI/OPNFV wording would be better understood within this working group 19:06:48 but it's unclear that is true for the broader openstack community 19:07:00 i think it would be worth starting a thread on openstack-dev highlighting the differences 19:07:03 and asking this question 19:07:47 ralfT, ^ 19:08:04 this is also my impression that ETSI wording is "nearer" to the data center world 19:08:50 yeah 19:09:27 can i give you the AI to send an email highlighting that disconnect though? 19:09:34 according to the stronger influence of OPNFV I can live with the ETSI/OPNFV wording 19:09:36 then hopefully we can get the use case rolling forward 19:09:40 ok :) 19:10:41 AI = ? 19:11:07 action item, sorry 19:12:16 I would like to ask the telcowg team to vote.... 19:12:38 i think the best way to achieve that is via a discussion on the mailing list 19:12:55 tagged with [telcowg][nfv], possibly others 19:13:47 ok - so I try this and ask Marc for some support 19:14:23 #action ralfT to follow up on IETF vs ETSI/OPNFV wording for service chaining use case 19:14:44 ok 19:15:00 #topic reviews 19:15:09 #topic reviews - template clarification 19:15:28 i have been discussing with the product working group how we could/should work with them to refine our use cases 19:15:48 they are building a process for taking use cases from the various working groups and feeding them to the project teams 19:15:54 #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/product-wg/2015-July/000485.html 19:16:25 as a result of that discussion i discovered there was some confusion around a couple of the template sections 19:16:30 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/199654/ 19:16:39 i attempt to address one in the above review 19:16:51 need some help with wording of the other (highlighted in the review comments) 19:17:53 we will also look at this 19:19:33 thanks 19:19:49 im not going to go 1 by 1 through the other reviews 19:20:06 but... 19:20:14 #topic reviews - workflow 19:20:16 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/178347/ 19:20:23 i have updated this in relation to the latest feedback 19:20:28 really need to get this nailed down 19:21:12 Is this the correct repo for use cases? https://github.com/stackforge/telcowg-usecases 19:21:44 not quite 19:22:00 the github.com repos are mirrors of the git.openstack.org ones 19:22:03 We're trying to get oriented on the workflow 19:22:07 http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/telcowg-usecases/ 19:22:36 And there's just one use case in it right now? 19:22:48 one merged 19:22:53 we have a number of proposals 19:22:57 https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/telcowg-usecases,n,z 19:23:03 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:stackforge/telcowg-usecases,n,z 19:23:08 ok, good, we wanted to make sure we were looking in the right place 19:23:24 one of the other topics on my agenda is better defining what the criteria are for merging these 19:23:30 since atm we only have ~ 3 cores defined 19:23:45 #action sgordon to email list about telcowg merge requirements for use cases 19:24:33 #topic operators midcycle 19:24:43 the discussion around the ops midcycle rages on 19:24:51 so still not confirmed exactly when/where 19:24:58 or even some of the mechanics 19:25:10 will keep tracking it but not much that can be added on that for now 19:25:15 #topic other discussion 19:25:31 ralfT, pcarver so that brings me to the end of what i think we can cover without a quorum 19:25:38 did you have anything else you would like to raise? 19:25:47 nothing for today 19:26:05 nothing for me. The main concern was that we were looking in the right place for use cases 19:26:15 The workflow howto could also be interesting for other groups... 19:26:15 ok no problem 19:26:27 We're planning to write some 19:26:28 pcarver, feel free to reach out in #openstack-nfv if you have Qs 19:26:43 yes the workflow and template is a big part of what i am discussing with the product wg 19:26:52 and whether it's something we try replicate for other working groups 19:27:30 alright, thanks all for your time 19:27:32 #endmeeting