Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Thank you Tim and Frank for continuously improving ourselves.

Certainly, the issues and comments in 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22485 still stand. Let us 
work it out as part of Step 2.

Thank you
Bin

-Original Message-
From: Tim Irnich  
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 1:43 AM
To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; HU, BIN ; 
Georg Kunz ; Trevor Bramwell 

Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Frank,

I attempted to make the slide cover everything we do, so that we have a 
baseline to continue with (both in terms of communicating the projects 
direction to the Board and externally as well as fleshing out the details for 
ourselves). My thinking was that sooner or later we would probably move to 
doing cloud native only but at second thought we probably should not state it 
like this yet.

So maybe we should rather just remove Cloud Native from the headline and say 
"Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for NFV and beyond". I've also 
removed it from the second main bullet and added a sub-bullet "Address 
state-of-the-art NFV and evolution to Cloud Native and Edge".

Does this solve the issue?

Regards, Tim

On 12/4/18 9:21 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> thanks for the updates. We might want to consider changing the title of slide 
> 13 to "Additional focus areas for OPNFV in 2019: Integrated reference stacks 
> and DevOps platform for Cloud Native NFV and beyond " rather than " OPNFV 
> Strategy - Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for Cloud Native 
> NFV and beyond", because the slide only talks about the additions to our 
> agenda. Otherwise people might be confused and think that the two bullets 
> would be all we'd do.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks, Frank
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Irnich 
> Sent: Samstag, 1. Dezember 2018 13:57
> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; BIN HU 
> ; Georg Kunz ; Trevor 
> Bramwell 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV 
> Strategic Plan
> 
> Following up on my AP from this week's TSC call, I went over slides 13 and 16 
> and changed them to (IMHO) better reflect the balance and outcome of the 
> discussion so far. The strategy slide has become a bit more wordy, but I 
> think this is necessary to disambiguate.
> 
> Regards, Tim
> 
> On 11/30/18 12:45 PM, Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org wrote:
>>  
>>
>> In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might 
>> help the discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that 
>> compares OPNFV today with the proposed future", assuming that we'd 
>> evolve along the path that Bin started to articulate. The table 
>> format is to make things more concrete and could help us in a second 
>> step to articulate where we'd want to focus on moving forward. This 
>> includes which additional work areas we'd like to inspire projects to 
>> work on (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to 
>> capture the current discussion and proposal into a table below (see 
>> also attached in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) - 
>> feel free to add/evolve/change per your understanding - the below is 
>> just my reading of Bin's deck.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks, Frank
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *OPNFV today*
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Potential Evolution *(changes in blue)
>>
>> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution 
>> stacks
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution 
>> stacks; Focus on cloud native and edge use cases.
>>
>> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
>> upstream) to meet the design/requirements
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
>> upstream) to meet the design/requirements.
>>
>> *Compose*- Follow the design and create a running system from a set 
>> of components
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Compose*- Follow the design and create a running system from a set 
>> of components
>>
>> *Deploy*- Install and run the composed system on a set of labs 
>> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test 
>> and deployment tools (installers, XCI,..).
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Deploy*- Install and run the composed system on a set of labs 
>> worldwide. This 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Cedric OLLIVIER]

Hello,
I would like to comment a little bit  the removal of "Operate a set of
servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, jenkins,..)".It may partially
work at OPNFV project level but I'm not convinced it's doable
everywhere in OPNFV.I would have thought it's up to OPNFV projects to
ease the reuse by giving configs for docker build, travis-ci,
readthedocs, jjbs, etc... as Functest has done.

Docker automated build allows building any monolithic container but we
may suffer from the current design if we publish sliced containers as
Functest does.By adding hooks [1], we could bypass that but the
notification system doesn't work in case of git tags in such a
case.Docker automated build only supports amd64 and then forbids
building arm64 containers
https://git.opnfv.org/functest/tree/docker/smoke/hooks/post_checkout 
Travis-ci gives us the flexibility to cross-compile containers to arm64
(or arm32 in case of Raspberry PI) but we will face with the overall
timeout due to the Qemu translations.I have also faced with lots of
network issues when building my third-parties containers for few
anticipation works (OpenStack master, etc...).But it's true that
travis-ci is improving and releng is not better regarding that part.I
don't see how we could deploy kubernetes or OpenStack quicker than the
default timeout as required by functional gates.
https://git.opnfv.org/functest/tree/.travis.yml
We do care about deploying/testing under nested virtualisation even if
it eases the development process.Then performance results won't be
relevant (-10%) and then OPNFV will drop the public fair test database
which is one of our key benefits.It's even more true for Kubernetes as
we would add a virtualisation layer lesser (from a performance point of
view) than containers.
In case of Functest, we already support lots of external tools and we
are offering a way to deploy the full CI/CD (from Jenkins to
dashboards) via docker-compose.
We are able to publish all artifacts out of OPNFV but we still depend
on hardware to ensure Functest is always stable.
Or we are forced to setup an external bot running on local resources
for fully verifying the changes (I haven't tested that out of gerrit).

Cédric 
Le vendredi 30 novembre 2018 à 11:44 +, Frank Brockners via
Lists.Opnfv.Org a écrit :
>  
> In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might
> help the discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that
> compares OPNFV today with the proposed future", assuming that we'd
> evolve along
>  the path that Bin started to articulate. The table format is to make
> things more concrete and could help us in a second step to articulate
> where we’d want to focus on moving forward. This includes which
> additional work areas we’d like to inspire projects to
>  work on (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to
> capture the current discussion and proposal into a table below (see
> also attached in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) –
> feel free to add/evolve/change per your understanding
>  – the below is just my reading of Bin’s deck. 
>  
> Thoughts?
>  
> Thanks, Frank
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPNFV today
> 
> 
> Potential Evolution (changes in
> blue)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Design – Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution
> stacks
> 
> 
> Design – Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution
> stacks;
> Focus on cloud native and edge use cases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Create – Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
> upstream) to meet the design/requirements
> 
> 
> Create – Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
> upstream) to meet the design/requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compose – Follow the design and create a running system from a set of
> components
> 
> 
> 
> Compose – Follow the design and create a running system from a set of
> components
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deploy – Install and run the composed system on a set of labs
> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test
> and deployment tools (installers, XCI,..).
> 
> 
> Deploy – Install and run the composed system on a set of labs
> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test
> and deployment tools (installers, XCI,..).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Test – Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an
> NFV solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system.
> This includes creation and enhancement of specific
>  test and deployment tools. In addition, this includes tooling for
> verification (OVP/CVP).
> 
> 
> Test – Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an
> NFV solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system.
> This includes creation and enhancement of specific
>  test and deployment tools. In addition, this includes tooling for
> verification (OVP/CVP).
> 
> Tool suite: Compose individual tools into a tool suite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iterate/Automate – Create guidelines and tooling for automated
> 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org]

Hi Tim,

thanks - I just want to make sure that we don't forget that there is quite a 
bit of work happening in OPNFV that we also want to see continue.
This would for example also include test and ops tools for stand-alone testing 
/ verification etc. that don't necessarily are part of a scenario/solution 
stack, nor are part of a "DevOps platform"
The more inclusive we can be with the "strategy statement" for what we do 
today, the more solid our foundation to evolve from where we are today.

BTW/ - Given that all the TSC can do is inspire the community to work on 
different tasks, we probably want to add a statement about that in the "work 
plan" slide. IMHO we probably want to inspire a project (existing or new) that 
would pull together the "DevOps Platform" as a release artifact. 

Cheers, Frank

-Original Message-
From: Tim Irnich  
Sent: Dienstag, 4. Dezember 2018 10:43
To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; BIN HU ; 
Georg Kunz ; Trevor Bramwell 

Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Frank,

I attempted to make the slide cover everything we do, so that we have a 
baseline to continue with (both in terms of communicating the projects 
direction to the Board and externally as well as fleshing out the details for 
ourselves). My thinking was that sooner or later we would probably move to 
doing cloud native only but at second thought we probably should not state it 
like this yet.

So maybe we should rather just remove Cloud Native from the headline and say 
"Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for NFV and beyond". I've also 
removed it from the second main bullet and added a sub-bullet "Address 
state-of-the-art NFV and evolution to Cloud Native and Edge".

Does this solve the issue?

Regards, Tim

On 12/4/18 9:21 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> thanks for the updates. We might want to consider changing the title of slide 
> 13 to "Additional focus areas for OPNFV in 2019: Integrated reference stacks 
> and DevOps platform for Cloud Native NFV and beyond " rather than " OPNFV 
> Strategy - Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for Cloud Native 
> NFV and beyond", because the slide only talks about the additions to our 
> agenda. Otherwise people might be confused and think that the two bullets 
> would be all we'd do.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks, Frank
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Irnich 
> Sent: Samstag, 1. Dezember 2018 13:57
> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; BIN HU 
> ; Georg Kunz ; Trevor 
> Bramwell 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV 
> Strategic Plan
> 
> Following up on my AP from this week's TSC call, I went over slides 13 and 16 
> and changed them to (IMHO) better reflect the balance and outcome of the 
> discussion so far. The strategy slide has become a bit more wordy, but I 
> think this is necessary to disambiguate.
> 
> Regards, Tim
> 
> On 11/30/18 12:45 PM, Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org wrote:
>>  
>>
>> In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might 
>> help the discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that 
>> compares OPNFV today with the proposed future", assuming that we'd 
>> evolve along the path that Bin started to articulate. The table 
>> format is to make things more concrete and could help us in a second 
>> step to articulate where we'd want to focus on moving forward. This 
>> includes which additional work areas we'd like to inspire projects to 
>> work on (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to 
>> capture the current discussion and proposal into a table below (see 
>> also attached in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) - 
>> feel free to add/evolve/change per your understanding - the below is 
>> just my reading of Bin's deck.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks, Frank
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *OPNFV today*
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Potential Evolution *(changes in blue)
>>
>> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution 
>> stacks
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution 
>> stacks; Focus on cloud native and edge use cases.
>>
>> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
>> upstream) to meet the design/requirements
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
>> upstream

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Tim Irnich]

Hi Frank,

I attempted to make the slide cover everything we do, so that we have a
baseline to continue with (both in terms of communicating the projects
direction to the Board and externally as well as fleshing out the
details for ourselves). My thinking was that sooner or later we would
probably move to doing cloud native only but at second thought we
probably should not state it like this yet.

So maybe we should rather just remove Cloud Native from the headline and
say "Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for NFV and
beyond". I've also removed it from the second main bullet and added a
sub-bullet "Address state-of-the-art NFV and evolution to Cloud Native
and Edge".

Does this solve the issue?

Regards, Tim

On 12/4/18 9:21 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> 
> thanks for the updates. We might want to consider changing the title of slide 
> 13 to "Additional focus areas for OPNFV in 2019: Integrated reference stacks 
> and DevOps platform for Cloud Native NFV and beyond " rather than " OPNFV 
> Strategy - Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for Cloud Native 
> NFV and beyond", because the slide only talks about the additions to our 
> agenda. Otherwise people might be confused and think that the two bullets 
> would be all we'd do.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks, Frank 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Irnich  
> Sent: Samstag, 1. Dezember 2018 13:57
> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; BIN HU ; 
> Georg Kunz ; Trevor Bramwell 
> 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic 
> Plan
> 
> Following up on my AP from this week's TSC call, I went over slides 13 and 16 
> and changed them to (IMHO) better reflect the balance and outcome of the 
> discussion so far. The strategy slide has become a bit more wordy, but I 
> think this is necessary to disambiguate.
> 
> Regards, Tim
> 
> On 11/30/18 12:45 PM, Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org wrote:
>>  
>>
>> In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might 
>> help the discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that 
>> compares OPNFV today with the proposed future", assuming that we'd 
>> evolve along the path that Bin started to articulate. The table format 
>> is to make things more concrete and could help us in a second step to 
>> articulate where we'd want to focus on moving forward. This includes 
>> which additional work areas we'd like to inspire projects to work on 
>> (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to capture the 
>> current discussion and proposal into a table below (see also attached 
>> in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) - feel free to 
>> add/evolve/change per your understanding - the below is just my 
>> reading of Bin's deck.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks, Frank
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *OPNFV today*
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Potential Evolution *(changes in blue)
>>
>> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution 
>> stacks
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution 
>> stacks; Focus on cloud native and edge use cases.
>>
>> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
>> upstream) to meet the design/requirements
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
>> upstream) to meet the design/requirements.
>>
>> *Compose*- Follow the design and create a running system from a set of 
>> components
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Compose*- Follow the design and create a running system from a set of 
>> components
>>
>> *Deploy*- Install and run the composed system on a set of labs 
>> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test and 
>> deployment tools (installers, XCI,..).
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Deploy*- Install and run the composed system on a set of labs 
>> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test and 
>> deployment tools (installers, XCI,..).
>>
>> *Test*- Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an 
>> NFV solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This 
>> includes creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools.
>> In addition, this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).
>>
>>  
>>
>> *Test*- Test the installation, i.e. running syste

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org]

Hi Tim,

thanks for the updates. We might want to consider changing the title of slide 
13 to "Additional focus areas for OPNFV in 2019: Integrated reference stacks 
and DevOps platform for Cloud Native NFV and beyond " rather than " OPNFV 
Strategy - Integrated reference stacks and DevOps platform for Cloud Native NFV 
and beyond", because the slide only talks about the additions to our agenda. 
Otherwise people might be confused and think that the two bullets would be all 
we'd do.

Thoughts?

Thanks, Frank 

-Original Message-
From: Tim Irnich  
Sent: Samstag, 1. Dezember 2018 13:57
To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) ; BIN HU ; 
Georg Kunz ; Trevor Bramwell 

Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Following up on my AP from this week's TSC call, I went over slides 13 and 16 
and changed them to (IMHO) better reflect the balance and outcome of the 
discussion so far. The strategy slide has become a bit more wordy, but I think 
this is necessary to disambiguate.

Regards, Tim

On 11/30/18 12:45 PM, Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org wrote:
>  
> 
> In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might 
> help the discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that 
> compares OPNFV today with the proposed future", assuming that we'd 
> evolve along the path that Bin started to articulate. The table format 
> is to make things more concrete and could help us in a second step to 
> articulate where we'd want to focus on moving forward. This includes 
> which additional work areas we'd like to inspire projects to work on 
> (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to capture the 
> current discussion and proposal into a table below (see also attached 
> in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) - feel free to 
> add/evolve/change per your understanding - the below is just my 
> reading of Bin's deck.
> 
>  
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, Frank
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *OPNFV today*
> 
>   
> 
> *Potential Evolution *(changes in blue)
> 
> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution 
> stacks
> 
>   
> 
> *Design*- Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution 
> stacks; Focus on cloud native and edge use cases.
> 
> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
> upstream) to meet the design/requirements
> 
>   
> 
> *Create*- Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
> upstream) to meet the design/requirements.
> 
> *Compose*- Follow the design and create a running system from a set of 
> components
> 
>   
> 
> *Compose*- Follow the design and create a running system from a set of 
> components
> 
> *Deploy*- Install and run the composed system on a set of labs 
> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test and 
> deployment tools (installers, XCI,..).
> 
>   
> 
> *Deploy*- Install and run the composed system on a set of labs 
> worldwide. This includes enhancement and creation of specific test and 
> deployment tools (installers, XCI,..).
> 
> *Test*- Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an 
> NFV solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This 
> includes creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools.
> In addition, this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).
> 
>   
> 
> *Test*- Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an 
> NFV solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This 
> includes creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools.
> In addition, this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).
> Tool suite: Compose individual tools into a tool suite.
> 
> *Iterate/Automate *- Create guidelines and tooling for automated 
> deployment, testing, and test-results reporting.
> 
>   
> 
> *Iterate/Automate *- Create guidelines and tooling for automated 
> deployment, testing, and test-results reporting.
> Create a "DevOps" platform: Tooling to automatically compose the 
> entire DevOps workflow using cloud services. (Require migration from 
> DIY hosted labs/git/gerrit/Jenkins to cloud services like packet.net, 
> github, circleCI, ..)
> 
> *Operate*- Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, 
> jenkins,..). Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS).
> 
>   
> 
> *Operate*- Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, 
> jenkins,..).Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS).
> 
> *OPNFV Release artifacts:*
> 
>   * Scenarios - installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI);
> "NFVI 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Cooper, Trevor]

I agree with Bin that its urgent the TSC clearly articulates a high-level 
vision and strategy and gets community consensus for change and what that 
means. Outside of the community I still hear many false impressions about 
OPNFVs supposed value (or lack thereof) ... with little appreciation for what 
it takes to deliver an integrated NFV solution. From my perspective these are 
unique and high value things that OPNFV can deliver ...


  1.  DevOps Platform (which supports and is tested with NFV components and 
scenarios for cloud native and edge use-cases)
  2.  Compliance and Verification Platform (infrastructure) for executing LFN 
compliance program
  3.  NFVI compliance - i.e. tests, test criteria etc. (functional tests today 
but evolving to performance for upcoming industry initiatives)
  4.  Hosted LaaS as well as tools/methods for companies to host their own LaaS 
for internal use or communities
  5.  ...

/Trevor


From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org  
On Behalf Of Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 3:45 AM
To: Georg Kunz ; HU, BIN ; Tim Irnich 
; Trevor Bramwell 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan




In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might help the 
discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that compares OPNFV today 
with the proposed future", assuming that we'd evolve along the path that Bin 
started to articulate. The table format is to make things more concrete and 
could help us in a second step to articulate where we'd want to focus on moving 
forward. This includes which additional work areas we'd like to inspire 
projects to work on (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to 
capture the current discussion and proposal into a table below (see also 
attached in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) - feel free to 
add/evolve/change per your understanding - the below is just my reading of 
Bin's deck.



Thoughts?



Thanks, Frank





OPNFV today


Potential Evolution (changes in blue)


Design - Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution stacks


Design - Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution stacks; Focus 
on cloud native and edge use cases.


Create - Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working upstream) 
to meet the design/requirements


Create - Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working upstream) 
to meet the design/requirements.


Compose - Follow the design and create a running system from a set of components


Compose - Follow the design and create a running system from a set of components


Deploy - Install and run the composed system on a set of labs worldwide. This 
includes enhancement and creation of specific test and deployment tools 
(installers, XCI,..).


Deploy - Install and run the composed system on a set of labs worldwide. This 
includes enhancement and creation of specific test and deployment tools 
(installers, XCI,..).


Test - Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an NFV 
solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This includes 
creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools. In addition, 
this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).


Test - Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an NFV 
solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This includes 
creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools. In addition, 
this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).
Tool suite: Compose individual tools into a tool suite.


Iterate/Automate - Create guidelines and tooling for automated deployment, 
testing, and test-results reporting.


Iterate/Automate - Create guidelines and tooling for automated deployment, 
testing, and test-results reporting.
Create a "DevOps" platform: Tooling to automatically compose the entire DevOps 
workflow using cloud services. (Require migration from DIY hosted 
labs/git/gerrit/Jenkins to cloud services like packet.net, github, circleCI, ..)


Operate - Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, jenkins,..). 
Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS).


Operate - Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, jenkins,..). 
Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS).



OPNFV Release artifacts:

  *   Scenarios - installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI);
"NFVI Platform"
  *   Tools (mostly test/operations tools)
  *   OVP/CVP solution


OPNFV Release artifacts:

  *   Scenarios - installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI);
streamlined, i.e. fewer scenarios; increased focus on CN and edge; "NFVI 
Platform"
  *   Packaged testing/operations tool suite
  *   OVP/CVP solution
  *   "DevOps Platform"






-Original Message-
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> 
mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>>

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Alec via Lists.Opnfv.Org]

I’d like to add some comments on the LaaS side.
I have been frustrated about how difficult it is to run simple data plane 
benchmarks on any OPNFV openstack deployment. There is a large diversity of 
hardware, wiring blueprints, installers, with different lab teams that makes it 
difficult to setup and maintain. As a result I can’t run any NFVbench 
automation because of this lack of stable stack that can handle data plane 
properly.

I have recently been working on packet.net and I can see how much more easy it 
can get to bring up any complex stack, with proper arrangement with the 
packet.net infra team.
Currently NFVbench runs on packet.net and can generate traffic to any 
commissioned server that can do L2 forwarding or L3 routing – and more 
importantly this can be automated pretty easily because the L2 data plane is 
programmable (which is a part missing in Pharos labs). This setup will be used 
for a benchmarking demo for CNCF Kubecon next week (I can provide more info if 
interested).
The hard part was to make sure the L2 data plane in packet.net works properly 
and I think we have a good foundation at the  moment (still in discussion with 
packet.net infra to make it even better).
If we could have OPNFV deployers work on something similar to packet.net I 
think that would be awesome for a lot of OPNFV projects.

Regarding devops CI/CD and use of deployers in production, I think it is 
important to clarify the difference between current OPNFV deployers, commercial 
deployers and real production.
There is a huge gap between what any OPNFV deployer (or any off the shelf 
installer for that matter) can do today and the kind of deployments that end up 
running in production. In addition to the usual stability in feature and 
functionality verification which are covered in OPNFV, the critical additional 
pieces are

  *   the interfacing between the virtualization layer and the final bare metal 
layer, which are simplified in a lab setting but cannot be simplified for real 
productions,
  *   operational considerations (integrated monitoring/alarming/non-service 
impacting HW+SW updates/scale/performance and capacity planning…)
  *   and the overall data plane blueprint (i.e. how to bring traffic into and 
out of potentially hundreds of VNFs)
These areas are complex, cannot be trivialized and are currently not well 
covered by OPNFV but still have to be addressed by somebody. So the goal of 
coming up with a generic deployer, deploy it and run in production-like setting 
is not realistic today (even less the idea of doing live CI/CD for production 
clouds). You could get something that sort of works but you will run very 
quickly into all sorts of limitations/caveats. And this applies btw 
independently to which cloud OS is used (k8s or openstack) and of the type of 
deployment (edge or the traditional NFV private cloud).

Best Regards,

   Alec




From:  on behalf of "Frank Brockners via 
Lists.Opnfv.Org" 
Reply-To: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" 
Date: Friday, November 30, 2018 at 3:45 AM
To: Georg Kunz , "HU, BIN" , Tim 
Irnich , Trevor Bramwell 
Cc: "opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org" 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan




In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might help the 
discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that compares OPNFV today 
with the proposed future", assuming that we'd evolve along the path that Bin 
started to articulate. The table format is to make things more concrete and 
could help us in a second step to articulate where we’d want to focus on moving 
forward. This includes which additional work areas we’d like to inspire 
projects to work on (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to 
capture the current discussion and proposal into a table below (see also 
attached in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) – feel free to 
add/evolve/change per your understanding – the below is just my reading of 
Bin’s deck.



Thoughts?



Thanks, Frank





OPNFV today


Potential Evolution (changes in blue)


Design – Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution stacks


Design – Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution stacks; Focus 
on cloud native and edge use cases.


Create – Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working upstream) 
to meet the design/requirements


Create – Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working upstream) 
to meet the design/requirements.


Compose – Follow the design and create a running system from a set of components


Compose – Follow the design and create a running system from a set of components


Deploy – Install and run the composed system on a set of labs worldwide. This 
includes enhancement and creation of specific test and deployment tools 
(installers, XCI,..).


Deploy – Install and run the composed system on a set of labs 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Ash Young]

Frank,

 

I really like your table. That is quite helpful. 

 

Best,

 

Ash

 

From: Frank Brockners (fbrockne)  
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2018 5:45 AM
To: Georg Kunz ; HU, BIN ; Tim
Irnich ; Trevor Bramwell

Cc: AshYoung ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org;
opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

 

 

In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might help the
discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that compares OPNFV
today with the proposed future", assuming that we'd evolve along the path
that Bin started to articulate. The table format is to make things more
concrete and could help us in a second step to articulate where we’d want to
focus on moving forward. This includes which additional work areas we’d like
to inspire projects to work on (or even new projects to be created for).
I've tried to capture the current discussion and proposal into a table below
(see also attached in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) –
feel free to add/evolve/change per your understanding – the below is just my
reading of Bin’s deck. 

 

Thoughts?

 

Thanks, Frank

 

 


OPNFV today

Potential Evolution (changes in blue)


Design – Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution stacks

Design – Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution stacks;
Focus on cloud native and edge use cases.


Create – Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
upstream) to meet the design/requirements

Create – Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working
upstream) to meet the design/requirements. 


Compose – Follow the design and create a running system from a set of
components 

Compose – Follow the design and create a running system from a set of
components 


Deploy – Install and run the composed system on a set of labs worldwide.
This includes enhancement and creation of specific test and deployment tools
(installers, XCI,..).

Deploy – Install and run the composed system on a set of labs worldwide.
This includes enhancement and creation of specific test and deployment tools
(installers, XCI,..).


Test – Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an NFV
solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This includes
creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools. In addition,
this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).

Test – Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an NFV
solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This includes
creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools. In addition,
this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).
Tool suite: Compose individual tools into a tool suite.


Iterate/Automate – Create guidelines and tooling for automated deployment,
testing, and test-results reporting.

Iterate/Automate – Create guidelines and tooling for automated deployment,
testing, and test-results reporting.
Create a “DevOps” platform: Tooling to automatically compose the entire
DevOps workflow using cloud services. (Require migration from DIY hosted
labs/git/gerrit/Jenkins to cloud services like packet.net, github, circleCI,
..)


Operate – Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit,
jenkins,..). Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS). 

Operate – Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit,
jenkins,..). Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS). 



OPNFV Release artifacts:

*   Scenarios – installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI);
“NFVI Platform”
*   Tools (mostly test/operations tools)
*   OVP/CVP solution

OPNFV Release artifacts:

*   Scenarios – installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI);
streamlined, i.e. fewer scenarios; increased focus on CN and edge; “NFVI
Platform”
*   Packaged testing/operations tool suite
*   OVP/CVP solution
*   “DevOps Platform”

 

 

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org 
mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> > On Behalf Of
Georg Kunz
Sent: Dienstag, 27. November 2018 18:46
To: HU, BIN mailto:bh5...@att.com> >; Tim Irnich
mailto:tim.irn...@suse.com> >; Trevor Bramwell
mailto:tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org> >
Cc: AshYoung mailto:a...@cachengo.com> >;
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
 ; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
 ; Manuel Buil mailto:mb...@suse.com> >
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

 

Hi Bin,

Hi all,

 

Due to the lively discussions during today's TSC call, the IRC minutes are a
little light [1]. However, I have to voice my concern that I cannot agree
with the following items:

 

[.]

14:41:31  #info Vote for strategy on Tuesday Dec 4

14:42:01  #info Hopefully everyone will agree

14:43:12  #info We need a decision on Dec 4 in order to trigger
following actions

14:43:35  #topic budget discussion

14:43:45  #info Stalemate is not an 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Frank Brockners via Lists.Opnfv.Org]

In the TSC meeting, Manuel voiced a pretty important ask that might help the 
discussion moving forward: "Cloud we create a table that compares OPNFV today 
with the proposed future", assuming that we'd evolve along the path that Bin 
started to articulate. The table format is to make things more concrete and 
could help us in a second step to articulate where we'd want to focus on moving 
forward. This includes which additional work areas we'd like to inspire 
projects to work on (or even new projects to be created for). I've tried to 
capture the current discussion and proposal into a table below (see also 
attached in case groups.io messes up the formatting and color) - feel free to 
add/evolve/change per your understanding - the below is just my reading of 
Bin's deck.



Thoughts?



Thanks, Frank





OPNFV today


Potential Evolution (changes in blue)


Design - Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution stacks


Design - Outline requirements; Design NFV components and solution stacks; Focus 
on cloud native and edge use cases.


Create - Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working upstream) 
to meet the design/requirements


Create - Create new and/or enhance components (most often by working upstream) 
to meet the design/requirements.


Compose - Follow the design and create a running system from a set of components


Compose - Follow the design and create a running system from a set of components


Deploy - Install and run the composed system on a set of labs worldwide. This 
includes enhancement and creation of specific test and deployment tools 
(installers, XCI,..).


Deploy - Install and run the composed system on a set of labs worldwide. This 
includes enhancement and creation of specific test and deployment tools 
(installers, XCI,..).


Test - Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an NFV 
solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This includes 
creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools. In addition, 
this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).


Test - Test the installation, i.e. running system that represents an NFV 
solution stack; as well as test specific aspects of a system. This includes 
creation and enhancement of specific test and deployment tools. In addition, 
this includes tooling for verification (OVP/CVP).
Tool suite: Compose individual tools into a tool suite.


Iterate/Automate - Create guidelines and tooling for automated deployment, 
testing, and test-results reporting.


Iterate/Automate - Create guidelines and tooling for automated deployment, 
testing, and test-results reporting.
Create a "DevOps" platform: Tooling to automatically compose the entire DevOps 
workflow using cloud services. (Require migration from DIY hosted 
labs/git/gerrit/Jenkins to cloud services like packet.net, github, circleCI, ..)


Operate - Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, jenkins,..). 
Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS).


Operate - Operate a set of servers/labs and services (git, gerrit, jenkins,..). 
Offer Lab-as-a-Service (LaaS).



OPNFV Release artifacts:

  *   Scenarios - installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI);
"NFVI Platform"
  *   Tools (mostly test/operations tools)
  *   OVP/CVP solution


OPNFV Release artifacts:

  *   Scenarios - installable NFV solution stacks (NFVI);
streamlined, i.e. fewer scenarios; increased focus on CN and edge; "NFVI 
Platform"
  *   Packaged testing/operations tool suite
  *   OVP/CVP solution
  *   "DevOps Platform"






-Original Message-
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of Georg 
Kunz
Sent: Dienstag, 27. November 2018 18:46
To: HU, BIN ; Tim Irnich ; Trevor Bramwell 

Cc: AshYoung ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan



Hi Bin,

Hi all,



Due to the lively discussions during today's TSC call, the IRC minutes are a 
little light [1]. However, I have to voice my concern that I cannot agree with 
the following items:



[.]

14:41:31  #info Vote for strategy on Tuesday Dec 4

14:42:01  #info Hopefully everyone will agree

14:43:12  #info We need a decision on Dec 4 in order to trigger 
following actions

14:43:35  #topic budget discussion

14:43:45  #info Stalemate is not an option [.]



I don't understand why "we need a decision by Dec 4 in order to trigger 
actions". I seriously appreciate your ambition to move this forward quickly as 
the main intention is to strengthen OPNFV's position. However, I also don't see 
why concrete actions are being blocked if there is no decision on Dec 4.



A core value of open source communities is that those who are interested in a 
particular topic, naturally tend to form a group which jointly works towards a 
common goal. In our concrete scenario, we could i) form a devops working group 
which works on fleshing out the details of the proposal, and/or ii) find a 
group of 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Trevor,

Thank you very much for understanding. And yes, we will take as much time as 
needed to deep dive the technical discussions at Step 2, and revise/adjust 
strategy/direction whenever needed, e.g. based on more information from 
technical discussion, emerging technologies and new business needs, and any 
other factors. We will continue to adapt and evolve.

Thank you again for being on board.

Bin

-Original Message-
From: Trevor Bramwell  
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 10:53 PM
To: HU, BIN 
Cc: Georg Kunz ; Tim Irnich ; 
AshYoung ; OPNFV Tech ; 
OPNFV TSC ; Manuel Buil 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin,

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:16:30AM +, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you so much for spending your time on additional questions. I really 
> appreciate it.
> 
> 
>   1.  Regarding supporting resources, I think we discussed it earlier in the 
> thread, and we need to enforce the resource availability criteria when 
> approving new projects so that the we will have sufficient new resources to 
> support those additional tools / deliverables.

I agree. Its important that when new projects start we ensure the resources 
(infra and people) are available before approval.

> 
>   1.  Regarding the strategy and details of work plan at the next 
> step, it is structured in a way that
> 
>   *   Slide #13 is a strategy, i.e. a high level vision and direction. The 
> targeted audience is those business executives who care more about where we 
> are heading at strategic business level. The vision and direction allow 
> flexibility for us to carefully continue to work out more details of a work 
> plan which is a work in progress summarized on slide #16.
>   *   Slide #16 is a summary of the work plan with more details as you 
> expected. It addresses the “how” question. This is a work in progress, and 
> subject to further discussion in different working groups, and more details 
> will be developed as we go further.
> 
> The ask is to agree on the high level strategy outlined on slide #13, which 
> shows stakeholders and business executives that we OPNFV, as an entire 
> community, is actively adapting ourselves to the evolving business 
> environment, and is able to take actions quickly to embrace the change. And 
> we are continuously improving ourselves, expanding our business outreach in 
> order to provide more and greater value to LFN and industry.
> 
> We leave slide #16 as living document, or just a plan of plan, to guide 
> further development of those details that you expected as we go further once 
> we send the business message out.

Ah, okay, this clarifies what I was not following. My assumption was the 
strategy's audience was us (the TSC) and not others.

We as a community are obviously aware of our pain points, and I was concerned 
that the issues we know need to be addressed did not seem to line up with where 
you are pointing we should go.

But since we're talking about two different levels of messaging here, I don't 
have a problem with the strategy if you feel the language will help others 
understand better the direction we're heading.

>   1.  Regarding the urgency, we are quickly finishing 2018 and heading into 
> 2019, we really need a clear strategy by the end of 2018 so that we can be 
> directed to work further on more details in 2019. Looking at calendar:
> 
>   *   Dec 25 and Jan 1 are holidays, and I don’t expect any TSC meeting on 
> those 2 days
>   *   Dec 18: we usually don’t get quorum based on past experience
>   *   Dec 11: because people starts to go on holidays, it is also very risky 
> to have a quorum on Dec 11 based on past experience. And there will be many 
> more TSC business we need to handle before the end of year
>   *   It leaves Dec 4 the only feasible date of having a quorum and making a 
> decision

As long as we're not agreeing to the opposite of what we want (which I don't 
think is the case anymore), and ensuring we take time to answer the technical 
questions this discussion raised in the future, I'm good.

I did not realize the 4th may be the last time we have quorum before the end of 
the year, and I can see the benefit of utilizing the momentum from the change 
in years to start addressing these issues, instead of debating what direction 
we should take.

>   1.  Regarding your wording suggestion, I think it is a great idea. How 
> about we switch “Solution” and “Platform” in the headline? So it will read “A 
> DevOps Solution for Integrated NFV Platform and Beyond”. This way, we keep 
> our original great value of an integrated NFV platform in its entirety, and 
> allow us more flexibility in defining a DevOps solution.

I think that works, since it addresses my only concern that we'd be redefining 
our platform as DevOps instead of NFV.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell

> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Thank you
> Bin
> 
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf 
> Of Trevor Bramwell

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Trevor Bramwell]

Hi Bin,

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 01:16:30AM +, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you so much for spending your time on additional questions. I really 
> appreciate it.
> 
> 
>   1.  Regarding supporting resources, I think we discussed it earlier in the 
> thread, and we need to enforce the resource availability criteria when 
> approving new projects so that the we will have sufficient new resources to 
> support those additional tools / deliverables.

I agree. Its important that when new projects start we ensure the
resources (infra and people) are available before approval.

> 
>   1.  Regarding the strategy and details of work plan at the next step, it is 
> structured in a way that
> 
>   *   Slide #13 is a strategy, i.e. a high level vision and direction. The 
> targeted audience is those business executives who care more about where we 
> are heading at strategic business level. The vision and direction allow 
> flexibility for us to carefully continue to work out more details of a work 
> plan which is a work in progress summarized on slide #16.
>   *   Slide #16 is a summary of the work plan with more details as you 
> expected. It addresses the “how” question. This is a work in progress, and 
> subject to further discussion in different working groups, and more details 
> will be developed as we go further.
> 
> The ask is to agree on the high level strategy outlined on slide #13, which 
> shows stakeholders and business executives that we OPNFV, as an entire 
> community, is actively adapting ourselves to the evolving business 
> environment, and is able to take actions quickly to embrace the change. And 
> we are continuously improving ourselves, expanding our business outreach in 
> order to provide more and greater value to LFN and industry.
> 
> We leave slide #16 as living document, or just a plan of plan, to guide 
> further development of those details that you expected as we go further once 
> we send the business message out.

Ah, okay, this clarifies what I was not following. My assumption
was the strategy's audience was us (the TSC) and not others.

We as a community are obviously aware of our pain points, and I was
concerned that the issues we know need to be addressed did not seem to
line up with where you are pointing we should go.

But since we're talking about two different levels of messaging here, I
don't have a problem with the strategy if you feel the language
will help others understand better the direction we're heading.

>   1.  Regarding the urgency, we are quickly finishing 2018 and heading into 
> 2019, we really need a clear strategy by the end of 2018 so that we can be 
> directed to work further on more details in 2019. Looking at calendar:
> 
>   *   Dec 25 and Jan 1 are holidays, and I don’t expect any TSC meeting on 
> those 2 days
>   *   Dec 18: we usually don’t get quorum based on past experience
>   *   Dec 11: because people starts to go on holidays, it is also very risky 
> to have a quorum on Dec 11 based on past experience. And there will be many 
> more TSC business we need to handle before the end of year
>   *   It leaves Dec 4 the only feasible date of having a quorum and making a 
> decision

As long as we're not agreeing to the opposite of what we want (which I
don't think is the case anymore), and ensuring we take time to answer
the technical questions this discussion raised in the future, I'm good.

I did not realize the 4th may be the last time we have quorum before the
end of the year, and I can see the benefit of utilizing the momentum
from the change in years to start addressing these issues, instead of
debating what direction we should take.

>   1.  Regarding your wording suggestion, I think it is a great idea. How 
> about we switch “Solution” and “Platform” in the headline? So it will read “A 
> DevOps Solution for Integrated NFV Platform and Beyond”. This way, we keep 
> our original great value of an integrated NFV platform in its entirety, and 
> allow us more flexibility in defining a DevOps solution.

I think that works, since it addresses my only concern that we'd be redefining
our platform as DevOps instead of NFV.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell

> 
> Please let me know what you think.
> 
> Thank you
> Bin
> 
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of 
> Trevor Bramwell
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:39 PM
> To: HU, BIN 
> Cc: Georg Kunz ; Tim Irnich ; 
> AshYoung ; OPNFV Tech 
> ; OPNFV TSC ; 
> Manuel Buil 
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> Hi Bin,
> 
> You wrote:
> > Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools,
> > isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example,
> > after we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right?
> > There is a "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose.
> 
> This concern was not about dropping support for our tools, but increasing the 
> amount
> of support our already constrained community 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Trevor,

Thank you so much for spending your time on additional questions. I really 
appreciate it.


  1.  Regarding supporting resources, I think we discussed it earlier in the 
thread, and we need to enforce the resource availability criteria when 
approving new projects so that the we will have sufficient new resources to 
support those additional tools / deliverables.


  1.  Regarding the strategy and details of work plan at the next step, it is 
structured in a way that

  *   Slide #13 is a strategy, i.e. a high level vision and direction. The 
targeted audience is those business executives who care more about where we are 
heading at strategic business level. The vision and direction allow flexibility 
for us to carefully continue to work out more details of a work plan which is a 
work in progress summarized on slide #16.
  *   Slide #16 is a summary of the work plan with more details as you 
expected. It addresses the “how” question. This is a work in progress, and 
subject to further discussion in different working groups, and more details 
will be developed as we go further.

The ask is to agree on the high level strategy outlined on slide #13, which 
shows stakeholders and business executives that we OPNFV, as an entire 
community, is actively adapting ourselves to the evolving business environment, 
and is able to take actions quickly to embrace the change. And we are 
continuously improving ourselves, expanding our business outreach in order to 
provide more and greater value to LFN and industry.

We leave slide #16 as living document, or just a plan of plan, to guide further 
development of those details that you expected as we go further once we send 
the business message out.


  1.  Regarding the urgency, we are quickly finishing 2018 and heading into 
2019, we really need a clear strategy by the end of 2018 so that we can be 
directed to work further on more details in 2019. Looking at calendar:

  *   Dec 25 and Jan 1 are holidays, and I don’t expect any TSC meeting on 
those 2 days
  *   Dec 18: we usually don’t get quorum based on past experience
  *   Dec 11: because people starts to go on holidays, it is also very risky to 
have a quorum on Dec 11 based on past experience. And there will be many more 
TSC business we need to handle before the end of year
  *   It leaves Dec 4 the only feasible date of having a quorum and making a 
decision


  1.  Regarding your wording suggestion, I think it is a great idea. How about 
we switch “Solution” and “Platform” in the headline? So it will read “A DevOps 
Solution for Integrated NFV Platform and Beyond”. This way, we keep our 
original great value of an integrated NFV platform in its entirety, and allow 
us more flexibility in defining a DevOps solution.

Please let me know what you think.

Thank you
Bin

From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of Trevor 
Bramwell
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 2:39 PM
To: HU, BIN 
Cc: Georg Kunz ; Tim Irnich ; 
AshYoung ; OPNFV Tech ; 
OPNFV TSC ; Manuel Buil 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin,

You wrote:
> Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools,
> isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example,
> after we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right?
> There is a "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose.

This concern was not about dropping support for our tools, but increasing the 
amount
of support our already constrained community provides. Georg stated this better 
than I did:

> That said, my current view on the proposal is the following: it broadens the 
> scope of the
> community (by a currently undefined amount), i.e., it adds on top of what we 
> are currently
> doing. I do not think that this is the right approach given shrinking amounts 
> of resources
> in the community - both in terms of developers and funding.
The concern regarding the strategy is that it seems you're asking us to approve 
a
plan that increase the scope of OPNFV, without any details, or at least saying 
the
details will be figured out later. And that's hard for some of us to agree to 
when we're detail
oriented and especially when it's coupled with an unclear urgency.

> We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason is ROI.
> If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one will magically
> come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new vision and direction
> will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will have the opportunity to bring
> new developers and investments that are interested in working on this 
> direction.

Absolutely agree.

> Now we face the difficulties - evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric way, 
> or
> in a more CI/CD-compliant way. I don't intend to discuss those details of
> choice here. Those are tactical discussion, and many times we chose a
> shortcut for the sake of release instead of a right way for long term benefit.
> However, a strategy and 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Trevor Bramwell]

Hi Bin,

You wrote:
> Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools,
> isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example,
> after we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right?
> There is a "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose.

This concern was not about dropping support for our tools, but increasing
the amount
of support our already constrained community provides. Georg stated this
better than I did:

> That said, my current view on the proposal is the following: it broadens
the scope of the
> community (by a currently undefined amount), i.e., it adds on top of what
we are currently
> doing. I do not think that this is the right approach given shrinking
amounts of resources
> in the community - both in terms of developers and funding.

The concern regarding the strategy is that it seems you're asking us to
approve a
plan that increase the scope of OPNFV, without any details, or at least
saying the
details will be figured out later. And that's hard for some of us to agree
to when we're detail
oriented and especially when it's coupled with an unclear urgency.

> We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason is ROI.
> If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one will magically
> come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new vision and direction
> will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will have the opportunity to
bring
> new developers and investments that are interested in working on this
direction.

Absolutely agree.

> Now we face the difficulties - evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric
way, or
> in a more CI/CD-compliant way. I don't intend to discuss those details of
> choice here. Those are tactical discussion, and many times we chose a
> shortcut for the sake of release instead of a right way for long term
benefit.
> However, a strategy and direction will guide those choices when we face
those difficulties.

You're right that we've chosen the shortcut because we didn't have the
strategy, and I
think that part of the issue with urgency is that the strategy lacks an
answer to that question.

And per Tim's point:
> The current material does not do
> this clearly enough. It sort of says "we keep doing everything we
> already do and add a few things." IMHO it would be better is we
> described the change we want to achieve (i.e. in the form of "instead of
> [...] we want [...]").

It's important that our strategic vision indicate how it is we're
changing even if we didn't have an explicit statement before.

One side note - Perhaps a simple restructuring of
"A DevOps Platform for Integrated NFV Solutions and Beyond"
to
"An Integrated NFV Platform for DevOps Solutions and Beyond"
would clarify we're not changing the platform.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell


On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:18 AM HU, BIN  wrote:

> Georg,
>
> Thank you for your questions and concerns.
>
> One key role of TSC is to provide direction to the community, which is the
> other pillar that strengthens the community-driven approach. The direction
> from TSC will inspire the community and represent our community externally,
> and the "personal motivation" will ultimately decide where the resource
> will go.
>
> One of the questions in the TSC discussion today is whether or not we have
> had strategy from TSC in the past. As far as I know, there wasn't. Correct
> me if I am wrong and show me where it is documented. So community needs a
> direction from TSC, which is more urgent for now than ever, because:
> - We don't have a strategy. Everything is driven by "personal motivation",
> which is good and bad. Sorry that I am quite frank and straightforward. If
> everything is driven by "personal motivation" without a direction, it
> eventually hurts the entire community. And it won't achieve your goal of
> strengthening platform and compliance program at all.
> - We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason is
> ROI. If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one will
> magically come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new vision and
> direction will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will have the
> opportunity to bring new developers and investments that are interested in
> working on this direction.
> - The WG mechanism is a good way of how to organize the work in a tactic
> level. However, without the blessing of a strategy, vision and direction
> that can be articulated and marketed, it won't bring new developers. So
> tactics (slide #16) is the way of how to achieve the strategy (slide #13).
> However, under no circumstance can a tactic replace a strategy.
> - You brought a great example of XCI. It was bottom up, and has achieved
> great result. However, because there was no strategy, there were hiccups in
> terms of scenarios v.s. installers etc. Now we face the difficulties -
> evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric way, or in a more CI/CD-compliant
> way. I don't intend to discuss 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Thank you Cedric.

Certainly, a DevOps strategy will help guide the right choice, especially 
removing the dependencies between projects and reducing the cycles, and 
enhancing the test activities across various verticals.

Thank you
Bin

-Original Message-
From: ollivier.ced...@gmail.com  
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 1:16 PM
To: HU, BIN ; Georg Kunz ; Tim Irnich 
; Trevor Bramwell 
Cc: AshYoung ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hello,

I don't know if the current issues are related to a missing strategy but I 
think we are moving away from the project scope.

Why not emphazing here XCI which only supports virtual machine deployment and 
the compliance program which mainly includes sparsed functional tests. But our 
endusers are waiting for platforms able to host VNFs and verified to do so 
(benchmarks, vnfs, etc..).

I second the referent platforms as long as they are fully verified by the 
underlying OPNFV test frameworks.

And I vote yes to reduce the dev cycles by removing the dependencies between 
our projects. I hope it won't result in a lack of testing as we're seeing in 
one place. It's great to accelerate new disruptive scenarios or ideas but it 
shouldn't have led to the lowest levels (see OpenStack gates) even if it fits 
few developpers.

OPNFV differs from the upstream communities thanks to its Lab and its DB 
fulfilled by test frameworks which is a fair public comparison between 
installers, networking implementations and enhancements, etc...

Cédric

Le mardi 27 novembre 2018 à 19:18 +, HU, BIN a écrit :
> Georg,
> 
> Thank you for your questions and concerns.
> 
> One key role of TSC is to provide direction to the community, which is 
> the other pillar that strengthens the community-driven approach.
> The direction from TSC will inspire the community and represent our 
> community externally, and the "personal motivation" will ultimately 
> decide where the resource will go.
> 
> One of the questions in the TSC discussion today is whether or not we 
> have had strategy from TSC in the past. As far as I know, there 
> wasn't. Correct me if I am wrong and show me where it is documented.
> So community needs a direction from TSC, which is more urgent for now 
> than ever, because:
> - We don't have a strategy. Everything is driven by "personal 
> motivation", which is good and bad. Sorry that I am quite frank and 
> straightforward. If everything is driven by "personal motivation"
> without a direction, it eventually hurts the entire community. And it 
> won't achieve your goal of strengthening platform and compliance 
> program at all.
> - We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason 
> is ROI. If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one 
> will magically come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new 
> vision and direction will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will 
> have the opportunity to bring new developers and investments that are 
> interested in working on this direction.
> - The WG mechanism is a good way of how to organize the work in a 
> tactic level. However, without the blessing of a strategy, vision and 
> direction that can be articulated and marketed, it won't bring new 
> developers. So tactics (slide #16) is the way of how to achieve the 
> strategy (slide #13). However, under no circumstance can a tactic 
> replace a strategy.
> - You brought a great example of XCI. It was bottom up, and has 
> achieved great result. However, because there was no strategy, there 
> were hiccups in terms of scenarios v.s. installers etc. Now we face 
> the difficulties - evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric way, or in 
> a more CI/CD-compliant way. I don't intend to discuss those details of 
> choice here. Those are tactical discussion, and many times we chose a 
> shortcut for the sake of release instead of a right way for long term 
> benefit. However, a strategy and direction will guide those choices 
> when we face those difficulties.
> 
> So there is a reality urgency and need of having a direction for our 
> community, not only for new things to bring in new developers, but 
> also help solve the issues for many projects when they are facing the 
> choices of where to go, what to do next, and whether a shortcut or for 
> long term.
> 
> At last, no one disagrees with strengthening platform and compliance 
> program, which has been captured on slide #13. Adding new direction 
> will not only help bring in new developers but also help many existing 
> projects to make the right choice. Eventually, "personal motivation" 
> decides where resources will go, because no one can force anyone el

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Cedric OLLIVIER]

Hello,

I don't know if the current issues are related to a missing strategy
but I think we are moving away from the project scope.

Why not emphazing here XCI which only supports virtual machine
deployment and the compliance program which mainly includes sparsed
functional tests. But our endusers are waiting for platforms able to
host VNFs and verified to do so (benchmarks, vnfs, etc..).

I second the referent platforms as long as they are fully verified by
the underlying OPNFV test frameworks.

And I vote yes to reduce the dev cycles by removing the dependencies
between our projects. I hope it won't result in a lack of testing as
we're seeing in one place. It's great to accelerate new disruptive
scenarios or ideas but it shouldn't have led to the lowest levels (see
OpenStack gates) even if it fits few developpers.

OPNFV differs from the upstream communities thanks to its Lab and its
DB fulfilled by test frameworks which is a fair public comparison
between installers, networking implementations and enhancements, etc...

Cédric

Le mardi 27 novembre 2018 à 19:18 +, HU, BIN a écrit :
> Georg,
> 
> Thank you for your questions and concerns.
> 
> One key role of TSC is to provide direction to the community, which
> is the other pillar that strengthens the community-driven approach.
> The direction from TSC will inspire the community and represent our
> community externally, and the "personal motivation" will ultimately
> decide where the resource will go.
> 
> One of the questions in the TSC discussion today is whether or not we
> have had strategy from TSC in the past. As far as I know, there
> wasn't. Correct me if I am wrong and show me where it is documented.
> So community needs a direction from TSC, which is more urgent for now
> than ever, because:
> - We don't have a strategy. Everything is driven by "personal
> motivation", which is good and bad. Sorry that I am quite frank and
> straightforward. If everything is driven by "personal motivation"
> without a direction, it eventually hurts the entire community. And it
> won't achieve your goal of strengthening platform and compliance
> program at all.
> - We are losing developers and other resources, and primarily reason
> is ROI. If we keep on doing today's way without a direction, no one
> will magically come back. We will lose more exponentially. A new
> vision and direction will bring a fresh look of OPNFV, and we will
> have the opportunity to bring new developers and investments that are
> interested in working on this direction.
> - The WG mechanism is a good way of how to organize the work in a
> tactic level. However, without the blessing of a strategy, vision and
> direction that can be articulated and marketed, it won't bring new
> developers. So tactics (slide #16) is the way of how to achieve the
> strategy (slide #13). However, under no circumstance can a tactic
> replace a strategy.
> - You brought a great example of XCI. It was bottom up, and has
> achieved great result. However, because there was no strategy, there
> were hiccups in terms of scenarios v.s. installers etc. Now we face
> the difficulties - evolve CI/CD in a more installer-centric way, or
> in a more CI/CD-compliant way. I don't intend to discuss those
> details of choice here. Those are tactical discussion, and many times
> we chose a shortcut for the sake of release instead of a right way
> for long term benefit. However, a strategy and direction will guide
> those choices when we face those difficulties.
> 
> So there is a reality urgency and need of having a direction for our
> community, not only for new things to bring in new developers, but
> also help solve the issues for many projects when they are facing the
> choices of where to go, what to do next, and whether a shortcut or
> for long term.
> 
> At last, no one disagrees with strengthening platform and compliance
> program, which has been captured on slide #13. Adding new direction
> will not only help bring in new developers but also help many
> existing projects to make the right choice. Eventually, "personal
> motivation" decides where resources will go, because no one can force
> anyone else to work on a specific project. So I don't see the concern
> of new direction will be competing with existing developers. For
> example, "personal motivation" may bring all developers to platform
> capabilities and compliance program, which is great.
> 
> Again, thank you for your question, but I do see the urgency of
> having a strategy asap, because of the reality needs as I stated
> above.
> 
> Best regards
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf
> Of Georg Kunz
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 9:46 AM
> To: HU, BIN ; Tim Irnich ;
> Trevor Bramwell 
> Cc: AshYoung ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> Hi Bin,
> Hi all,
> 
> Due to the lively discussions during 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Bin,
Hi all,

Due to the lively discussions during today's TSC call, the IRC minutes are a 
little light [1]. However, I have to voice my concern that I cannot agree with 
the following items:

[.]
14:41:31  #info Vote for strategy on Tuesday Dec 4
14:42:01  #info Hopefully everyone will agree
14:43:12  #info We need a decision on Dec 4 in order to trigger 
following actions
14:43:35  #topic budget discussion
14:43:45  #info Stalemate is not an option
[.]

I don't understand why "we need a decision by Dec 4 in order to trigger 
actions". I seriously appreciate your ambition to move this forward quickly as 
the main intention is to strengthen OPNFV's position. However, I also don't see 
why concrete actions are being blocked if there is no decision on Dec 4.

A core value of open source communities is that those who are interested in a 
particular topic, naturally tend to form a group which jointly works towards a 
common goal. In our concrete scenario, we could i) form a devops working group 
which works on fleshing out the details of the proposal, and/or ii) find a 
group of interested people prototyping some of the "cloud-based devops 
methodologies. None of such activities would be considered a stalemate. The 
results of such _community-driven_ activities would help to convince the entire 
community. A very successful example in this regard is XCI, which was driven by 
a small group of people.

Certainly, it is the job of all TSC members to actively participate in the 
strategy definition and discussion and I urge everybody to do so. An open 
source community works best if it is driven by personal motivation. For sure it 
does not work well if deadlines for decisions about unclear directions are put 
on a community without a clear understanding why.


That said, my current view on the proposal is the following: it broadens the 
scope of the community (by a currently undefined amount), i.e., it adds on top 
of what we are currently doing. I do not think that this is the right approach 
given shrinking amounts of resources in the community - both in terms of 
developers and funding. I believe we need to instead discuss, as an 
alternative, if we should and can focus on a very specific, well-defined and 
sought-after contribution to the ecosystem. I mentioned this in a previous 
email already: based on input from stakeholders, I would argue for 
strengthening the reference platform (as defined through comprehensive tests) 
and the corresponding compliance program. This is my perspective for sure - 
others might disagree and I'd love to discuss better proposals.

[1] 
http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnfv-meeting.2018-11-27-13.54.log.txt

Best regards
Georg

-Original Message-
From: HU, BIN  
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:22 PM
To: Tim Irnich ; Trevor Bramwell 

Cc: AshYoung ; Georg Kunz ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 

Subject: RE: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Thank you for pointing out one possibility based on the assumption that the 
same resources will do both work. The assumption itself may not be true because 
there will be different resources to do different work in different projects 
(which is the reality today).

So the resource availability is a key factor to consider when we approve the 
new projects subsequently after we plan the product portfolio. When we have 
dedicated resources to do each job, such possibility will be unlikely to happen.

Thanks
Bin

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of Tim 
Irnich
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:59 PM
To: HU, BIN ; Trevor Bramwell 
Cc: AshYoung ; Georg Kunz ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

The way I understand Trevor's concern is that if we start spending more time on 
packaging tools and supporting their usage downstream, there will be less time 
for doing integration work and driving upstream production readiness. Which is 
something I'm concerned about too.

Pretending that this problem doesn't exist isn't helpful IMHO.

Tim

On 11/27/18 2:11 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you for you clarifying it.
> 
> The integration work is explicitly mentioned to be continued in 3rd bullet on 
> slide #13 of v0.8. I am attaching it again just in case you missed it. That 
> work will continue as usual. All related bug fixes and new features in 
> upstream will continue as usual too. So I am not sure why it is a concern 
> here.
> 
> Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools, 
> isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example, after 
> we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right? There is a 
> "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose. There isn't much traffic though. 
> It means either everyone is an expert or no one is 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Thank you for pointing out one possibility based on the assumption that the 
same resources will do both work. The assumption itself may not be true because 
there will be different resources to do different work in different projects 
(which is the reality today).

So the resource availability is a key factor to consider when we approve the 
new projects subsequently after we plan the product portfolio. When we have 
dedicated resources to do each job, such possibility will be unlikely to happen.

Thanks
Bin

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of Tim 
Irnich
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:59 PM
To: HU, BIN ; Trevor Bramwell 
Cc: AshYoung ; Georg Kunz ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; Manuel Buil 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

The way I understand Trevor's concern is that if we start spending more time on 
packaging tools and supporting their usage downstream, there will be less time 
for doing integration work and driving upstream production readiness. Which is 
something I'm concerned about too.

Pretending that this problem doesn't exist isn't helpful IMHO.

Tim

On 11/27/18 2:11 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you for you clarifying it.
> 
> The integration work is explicitly mentioned to be continued in 3rd bullet on 
> slide #13 of v0.8. I am attaching it again just in case you missed it. That 
> work will continue as usual. All related bug fixes and new features in 
> upstream will continue as usual too. So I am not sure why it is a concern 
> here.
> 
> Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools, 
> isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example, after 
> we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right? There is a 
> "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose. There isn't much traffic though. 
> It means either everyone is an expert or no one is interested in using our 
> release. I wish it was because everyone is an expert, though the reality 
> might be opposite.
> 
> Recently, someone asked me how to run Yardstick on Dovetail. Thanks Georg for 
> sharing the docs. I was really excited because finally someone is interested 
> in using our tool. So getting user to use our tools is exactly what we want, 
> right? Without users, I don't know how to show others our value, frankly.
> 
> So IMHO, spending our time to help user isn't a concern at all. It is what we 
> need. And there is no difference of supporting users, e.g. use OpenStack by 
> OpenStack community, use ODL by ODL community. Etc.
> 
> If there is no user to support, we are in trouble because our deliverables 
> has no value.
> 
> Let me know what you think, and if you still have concerns.
> 
> Thank you
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf 
> Of Trevor Bramwell
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:54 PM
> To: HU, BIN 
> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; 
> Georg Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> Hi Bin,
> 
> Perhaps 'integrated' is a better word here than 'supported'. A lot of the 
> work in OPNFV involves integrating many of these upstream components which in 
> turn exposes bugs, or creates features that enable an NFV use case.
> 
> I'm quite terrible with examples, but I'm sure others from the community have 
> time.
> 
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell
> 
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26:33AM +, HU, BIN wrote:
>> Trevor,
>>
>> Thank you for your question.
>>
>> Can you give more details and examples of "doing what we're best at, which 
>> is getting NFV supported by upstream projects."?
>>
>> Thank you
>> Bin
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Trevor Bramwell 
>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM
>> To: HU, BIN 
>> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; 
>> Georg Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
>>
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating stakeholders' 
>> business transformation into DevOps organization"
>>
>> From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up everything 
>> that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing / verification / 
>> certification tools, etc.) and turn that into something that can be deployed 
>> by a company internally.
>>
>> Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if so I'd be 
>> concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies incentive to be involved, 
>> or more of our time would be spent trying to support people using the tool 
>> then doing what we're best at, which is getting NFV supported by upstream 
>> projects.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Trevor Bramwell
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +, HU, BIN wrote:
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> Not sure if you get a chance to follow the 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Tim Irnich]

The way I understand Trevor's concern is that if we start spending more
time on packaging tools and supporting their usage downstream, there
will be less time for doing integration work and driving upstream
production readiness. Which is something I'm concerned about too.

Pretending that this problem doesn't exist isn't helpful IMHO.

Tim

On 11/27/18 2:11 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you for you clarifying it.
> 
> The integration work is explicitly mentioned to be continued in 3rd bullet on 
> slide #13 of v0.8. I am attaching it again just in case you missed it. That 
> work will continue as usual. All related bug fixes and new features in 
> upstream will continue as usual too. So I am not sure why it is a concern 
> here.
> 
> Regarding the concern of spending our time to help people use our tools, 
> isn't it the usual business we are supposed to do today? For example, after 
> we release Gambia, we are supposed to help people use it, right? There is a 
> "opnfv-user" mailing list for this purpose. There isn't much traffic though. 
> It means either everyone is an expert or no one is interested in using our 
> release. I wish it was because everyone is an expert, though the reality 
> might be opposite.
> 
> Recently, someone asked me how to run Yardstick on Dovetail. Thanks Georg for 
> sharing the docs. I was really excited because finally someone is interested 
> in using our tool. So getting user to use our tools is exactly what we want, 
> right? Without users, I don't know how to show others our value, frankly.
> 
> So IMHO, spending our time to help user isn't a concern at all. It is what we 
> need. And there is no difference of supporting users, e.g. use OpenStack by 
> OpenStack community, use ODL by ODL community. Etc.
> 
> If there is no user to support, we are in trouble because our deliverables 
> has no value.
> 
> Let me know what you think, and if you still have concerns.
> 
> Thank you
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of 
> Trevor Bramwell
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:54 PM
> To: HU, BIN 
> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; Georg 
> Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> Hi Bin,
> 
> Perhaps 'integrated' is a better word here than 'supported'. A lot of the 
> work in OPNFV involves integrating many of these upstream components which in 
> turn exposes bugs, or creates features that enable an NFV use case.
> 
> I'm quite terrible with examples, but I'm sure others from the community have 
> time.
> 
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell
> 
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26:33AM +, HU, BIN wrote:
>> Trevor,
>>
>> Thank you for your question.
>>
>> Can you give more details and examples of "doing what we're best at, which 
>> is getting NFV supported by upstream projects."?
>>
>> Thank you
>> Bin
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Trevor Bramwell 
>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM
>> To: HU, BIN 
>> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; 
>> Georg Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
>>
>> Hi Bin,
>>
>> I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating stakeholders’ 
>> business transformation into DevOps organization"
>>
>> From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up everything 
>> that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing / verification / 
>> certification tools, etc.) and turn that into something that can be deployed 
>> by a company internally.
>>
>> Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if so I'd be 
>> concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies incentive to be involved, 
>> or more of our time would be spent trying to support people using the tool 
>> then doing what we're best at, which is getting NFV supported by upstream 
>> projects.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Trevor Bramwell
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +, HU, BIN wrote:
>>> Tim,
>>>
>>> Not sure if you get a chance to follow the most recent discussion.
>>>
>>> The ask is merely to agree on a strategy (i.e. the vision and direction) 
>>> outlined on Slide #13, supported by the steps of actions summarized on 
>>> slide #16. See attached the most recent update v0.8.
>>>
>>> Please let me know if there is anything unclear here.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bin
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On 
>>> Behalf Of Tim Irnich
>>> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:57 PM
>>> To: HU, BIN ; AshYoung ; Georg 
>>> Kunz ; Manuel Buil 
>>> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
>>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
>>>
>>> On 11/26/18 4:40 PM, HU, BIN wrote:

 If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same question, 
 i.e. what will we do in the next step?
>>>

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Trevor Bramwell]

Hi Bin,

Perhaps 'integrated' is a better word here than 'supported'. A lot of
the work in OPNFV involves integrating many of these upstream components
which in turn exposes bugs, or creates features that enable an NFV use
case.

I'm quite terrible with examples, but I'm sure others from the community
have time.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26:33AM +, HU, BIN wrote:
> Trevor,
> 
> Thank you for your question.
> 
> Can you give more details and examples of "doing what we're best at, which is 
> getting NFV supported by upstream projects."?
> 
> Thank you
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Trevor Bramwell  
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM
> To: HU, BIN 
> Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; Georg 
> Kunz ; Manuel Buil ; 
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> Hi Bin,
> 
> I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating stakeholders’ 
> business transformation into DevOps organization"
> 
> From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up everything 
> that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing / verification / 
> certification tools, etc.) and turn that into something that can be deployed 
> by a company internally.
> 
> Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if so I'd be 
> concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies incentive to be involved, 
> or more of our time would be spent trying to support people using the tool 
> then doing what we're best at, which is getting NFV supported by upstream 
> projects.
> 
> Regards,
> Trevor Bramwell
> 
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +, HU, BIN wrote:
> > Tim,
> > 
> > Not sure if you get a chance to follow the most recent discussion.
> > 
> > The ask is merely to agree on a strategy (i.e. the vision and direction) 
> > outlined on Slide #13, supported by the steps of actions summarized on 
> > slide #16. See attached the most recent update v0.8.
> > 
> > Please let me know if there is anything unclear here.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Bin
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf 
> > Of Tim Irnich
> > Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:57 PM
> > To: HU, BIN ; AshYoung ; Georg Kunz 
> > ; Manuel Buil 
> > Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> > 
> > On 11/26/18 4:40 PM, HU, BIN wrote:
> > > 
> > > If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same 
> > > question, i.e. what will we do in the next step?
> > 
> > No, I'm rather suggesting to make sure our understanding is complete before 
> > we proceed. We clearly do not yet sufficiently understand what exactly the 
> > decision is you're asking us to take, so we cannot proceed.
> > Let's continue to work on this until we have the required clarity, and then 
> > decide.
> > 
> > Regards, Tim
> > 
> 
> 
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> > 
> > View/Reply Online (#4856): 
> > https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/4856
> > Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/27802341/557206
> > Group Owner: opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/unsub  
> > [tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org]
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22443): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22443
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Trevor,

Thank you for your question.

Can you give more details and examples of "doing what we're best at, which is 
getting NFV supported by upstream projects."?

Thank you
Bin

-Original Message-
From: Trevor Bramwell  
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:17 PM
To: HU, BIN 
Cc: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; Georg Kunz 
; Manuel Buil ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin,

I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating stakeholders’ 
business transformation into DevOps organization"

From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up everything 
that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing / verification / 
certification tools, etc.) and turn that into something that can be deployed by 
a company internally.

Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if so I'd be 
concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies incentive to be involved, or 
more of our time would be spent trying to support people using the tool then 
doing what we're best at, which is getting NFV supported by upstream projects.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +, HU, BIN wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> Not sure if you get a chance to follow the most recent discussion.
> 
> The ask is merely to agree on a strategy (i.e. the vision and direction) 
> outlined on Slide #13, supported by the steps of actions summarized on slide 
> #16. See attached the most recent update v0.8.
> 
> Please let me know if there is anything unclear here.
> 
> Thanks
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf 
> Of Tim Irnich
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:57 PM
> To: HU, BIN ; AshYoung ; Georg Kunz 
> ; Manuel Buil 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> On 11/26/18 4:40 PM, HU, BIN wrote:
> > 
> > If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same question, 
> > i.e. what will we do in the next step?
> 
> No, I'm rather suggesting to make sure our understanding is complete before 
> we proceed. We clearly do not yet sufficiently understand what exactly the 
> decision is you're asking us to take, so we cannot proceed.
> Let's continue to work on this until we have the required clarity, and then 
> decide.
> 
> Regards, Tim
> 


> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> 
> View/Reply Online (#4856): 
> https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/4856
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/27802341/557206
> Group Owner: opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/unsub  
> [tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22441): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22441
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Trevor Bramwell]

Hi Bin,

I'm still unclear on the first point: "Enabling and automating
stakeholders’ business transformation into DevOps organization"

From what I've read it seems like the suggestion is to package up
everything that makes up OPNFV (Platform, CI/CD piplines, testing /
verification / certification tools, etc.) and turn that into something
that can be deployed by a company internally.

Is that what is being suggested here, or something else? And if so I'd
be concerned that we'd actually be reducing companies incentive to be
involved, or more of our time would be spent trying to support people
using the tool then doing what we're best at, which is getting NFV
supported by upstream projects.

Regards,
Trevor Bramwell

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 09:04:57PM +, HU, BIN wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> Not sure if you get a chance to follow the most recent discussion.
> 
> The ask is merely to agree on a strategy (i.e. the vision and direction) 
> outlined on Slide #13, supported by the steps of actions summarized on slide 
> #16. See attached the most recent update v0.8.
> 
> Please let me know if there is anything unclear here.
> 
> Thanks 
> Bin
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of Tim 
> Irnich
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:57 PM
> To: HU, BIN ; AshYoung ; Georg Kunz 
> ; Manuel Buil 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> On 11/26/18 4:40 PM, HU, BIN wrote:
> > 
> > If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same question, 
> > i.e. what will we do in the next step?
> 
> No, I'm rather suggesting to make sure our understanding is complete before 
> we proceed. We clearly do not yet sufficiently understand what exactly the 
> decision is you're asking us to take, so we cannot proceed.
> Let's continue to work on this until we have the required clarity, and then 
> decide.
> 
> Regards, Tim
> 


> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> 
> View/Reply Online (#4856): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/4856
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/27802341/557206
> Group Owner: opnfv-tsc+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/unsub  
> [tbramw...@linuxfoundation.org]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22440): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22440
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Tim Irnich]

On 11/26/18 4:40 PM, HU, BIN wrote:
> 
> If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same question, 
> i.e. what will we do in the next step?

No, I'm rather suggesting to make sure our understanding is complete
before we proceed. We clearly do not yet sufficiently understand what
exactly the decision is you're asking us to take, so we cannot proceed.
Let's continue to work on this until we have the required clarity, and
then decide.

Regards, Tim

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#22438): 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/22438
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/28277855/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub  
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Srinivasa Addepalli]

Hi Bin,

In slide 3, you have this: –Addressing key roadblock of other open source
communities (e.g. ONAP, OpenStack, Acumos etc.)
It would be good if you can add K8S too as an example.  Like this: –Addressing
key roadblock of other open source communities (e.g. ONAP, OpenStack, Acumos,
K8S etc.)

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 9:24 AM HU, BIN  wrote:

> Srini,
>
> Thank you for input.
>
> The details of K8S and how it should work with NFV need to be addressed at
> a more tactical level, because K8S is one of the technologies in CN
> paradigm. E.g:
> - Step 2+: when defining how a CN-based platform is composed of, how
> packaged CN-based testing tool is composed of
> - and how a vertical will use CN-based solution, e.g. at Edge Cloud
> project, or OVN4NFV project etc.
>
> You are very welcome to contribute to all of the details of technology,
> including but not limited to K8S.
>
> Thank you
> Bin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Addepalli, Srinivasa R 
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:39 AM
> To: HU, BIN ; Tim Irnich ; AshYoung <
> a...@cachengo.com>; Georg Kunz ; Manuel Buil <
> mb...@suse.com>
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV
> Strategic Plan
>
> Hi Bin,
>
> My 2 cents from strategy perspective.
>
> I see that Cloud native and micro services mentioned in your presentation.
> But I did not see any Kubernetes term used anywhere. Hence, I thought I
> would bring this up.
>
> So far, majority of the OPNFV focus seems to be supporting openstack based
> sites.  Many edge deployments are talking about using K8S.  That leads to
> supporting VNFs and CNFs using K8S.  I feel that OPNFV community can lead
> this effort on "K8S for NFV" -  from CNI requirements perspective,
> supporting various workloads (VM, container and Functions) and installation
> perspective.
>
> In summary, strategy perspective, "K8S for NFV" need to be considered, in
> my view.
>
> Some details:
>
> On CNI: OVN4NFV project started to develop OVN4NFV to work in K8S
> environment. But, there may be other CNIs that OPNFV community may be
> interested in such Nokia DANM and NSM (Network Service Mesh). Hence, I feel
> it is important for OPNFV community to list down requirements on CNIs for
> Network functions.
>
> On workloads:  Docker is well known for bringing up containers. For VMs,
> there are multiple options - Virtlet and Kubevirt for example.  It is good
> if OPNFV community discusses on how these can be supported.
>
> On software provisioning/installations: There are many installation in K8S
> world - Kubespray and others.  I feel that it is important to study and
> consider new installers that are popular in K8S world and enhance them to
> use for NFV.
>
> Thanks
> Srini
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of HU, BIN
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 7:40 AM
> To: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; Georg
> Kunz ; Manuel Buil 
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV
> Strategic Plan
>
> Tim,
>
> Thank you for jumping in and offering your opinion. That's very helpful
> and valuable.
>
> If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same question,
> i.e. what will we do in the next step?
> - As I clarified in the email
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4844=DwIFAw=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=1h2UtM6XU8AenrGJ-Q8amy3LevJHiHk6H-e9Acwbe68=oMmmb5REJiKea-CVQ9n5qXl9oSrcGyhH6UxDZ93GNcU=
> and earlier in this thread
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4845=DwIFAw=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=1h2UtM6XU8AenrGJ-Q8amy3LevJHiHk6H-e9Acwbe68=D7kWljFPFP2Ktnqa4r-a7LnuLvdTfBcgbUbm2lS_XII=,
> this is our 1st milestone or Step #1 to have a strategic plan. This
> milestone triggers the action of Step #2 and other following steps. Those
> steps (or actions) are outlined on slide #16.
> - Once we agree on the strategic plan, the action is the Step #2, i.e. to
> define the details of the portfolio of what we can offer. The example of
> details was illustrated in
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4845=DwIFAw=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=1h2UtM6XU8AenrGJ-Q8amy3LevJHiHk6H-e9Acwbe68=D7kWljFPFP2Ktnqa4r-a7LnuLvdTfBcgbUbm2lS_XII=
> .
> - You can see the example of portfolio in
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Srini,

Thank you for input.

The details of K8S and how it should work with NFV need to be addressed at a 
more tactical level, because K8S is one of the technologies in CN paradigm. E.g:
- Step 2+: when defining how a CN-based platform is composed of, how packaged 
CN-based testing tool is composed of
- and how a vertical will use CN-based solution, e.g. at Edge Cloud project, or 
OVN4NFV project etc.

You are very welcome to contribute to all of the details of technology, 
including but not limited to K8S.

Thank you
Bin

-Original Message-
From: Addepalli, Srinivasa R  
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:39 AM
To: HU, BIN ; Tim Irnich ; AshYoung 
; Georg Kunz ; Manuel Buil 

Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin,

My 2 cents from strategy perspective.  

I see that Cloud native and micro services mentioned in your presentation. But 
I did not see any Kubernetes term used anywhere. Hence, I thought I would bring 
this up.

So far, majority of the OPNFV focus seems to be supporting openstack based 
sites.  Many edge deployments are talking about using K8S.  That leads to 
supporting VNFs and CNFs using K8S.  I feel that OPNFV community can lead this 
effort on "K8S for NFV" -  from CNI requirements perspective, supporting 
various workloads (VM, container and Functions) and installation perspective. 

In summary, strategy perspective, "K8S for NFV" need to be considered, in my 
view.

Some details:

On CNI: OVN4NFV project started to develop OVN4NFV to work in K8S environment. 
But, there may be other CNIs that OPNFV community may be interested in such 
Nokia DANM and NSM (Network Service Mesh). Hence, I feel it is important for 
OPNFV community to list down requirements on CNIs for Network functions. 

On workloads:  Docker is well known for bringing up containers. For VMs, there 
are multiple options - Virtlet and Kubevirt for example.  It is good if OPNFV 
community discusses on how these can be supported.

On software provisioning/installations: There are many installation in K8S 
world - Kubespray and others.  I feel that it is important to study and 
consider new installers that are popular in K8S world and enhance them to use 
for NFV.

Thanks
Srini


-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of HU, BIN
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 7:40 AM
To: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; Georg Kunz 
; Manuel Buil 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Tim,

Thank you for jumping in and offering your opinion. That's very helpful and 
valuable.

If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same question, i.e. 
what will we do in the next step?
- As I clarified in the email 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4844=DwIFAw=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=1h2UtM6XU8AenrGJ-Q8amy3LevJHiHk6H-e9Acwbe68=oMmmb5REJiKea-CVQ9n5qXl9oSrcGyhH6UxDZ93GNcU=
 and earlier in this thread 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4845=DwIFAw=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=1h2UtM6XU8AenrGJ-Q8amy3LevJHiHk6H-e9Acwbe68=D7kWljFPFP2Ktnqa4r-a7LnuLvdTfBcgbUbm2lS_XII=,
 this is our 1st milestone or Step #1 to have a strategic plan. This milestone 
triggers the action of Step #2 and other following steps. Those steps (or 
actions) are outlined on slide #16.
- Once we agree on the strategic plan, the action is the Step #2, i.e. to 
define the details of the portfolio of what we can offer. The example of 
details was illustrated in 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4845=DwIFAw=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=1h2UtM6XU8AenrGJ-Q8amy3LevJHiHk6H-e9Acwbe68=D7kWljFPFP2Ktnqa4r-a7LnuLvdTfBcgbUbm2lS_XII=.
- You can see the example of portfolio in 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g_opnfv-2Dtsc_message_4845=DwIFAw=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=1h2UtM6XU8AenrGJ-Q8amy3LevJHiHk6H-e9Acwbe68=D7kWljFPFP2Ktnqa4r-a7LnuLvdTfBcgbUbm2lS_XII=
 is getting the balance of equal importance of tools and reference stacks, and 
maximizes the value of what we can offer.
- I changed the wording of 1st bullet point on slide #16 to reflect your point 
of #1 and #3. This is the Step #2, the immediate action point triggered by the 
strategic plan.
- I also changed wording on other bullets on slide #16 to reflect some more 
details in my prior messages.
- See attached deck v0.7.

Regarding your point #4, it is actually one of the following actions, i.e. to 
develop a marketing message to reflect our strategy. This is captured on the 
last bullet point on slide #16. Certainly, this is ano

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Manuel,

Thank you for your great question. I would say that slide #13 provides the 
strategy and vision at a high level, and slide #16 provides more clarity of 
steps to execute towards the strategy and vision. The others are background and 
supporting material. I think our discussion is more about how to achieve it in 
a more balanced way without losing existing products, and considering the 
nature of a roadmap.

So you are right. The voting is for the strategy (the ultimate vision and 
direction) (slide #13), with the supporting steps of execution to achieve the 
vision in a gradual and balanced way in order to maximize the value of OPNFV 
(slide #16).

Hope that I clarify it, and please let me know if you have any more concern on 
the strategy and its execution steps.

Thanks
Bin

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org  
On Behalf Of Manuel Buil
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 8:51 AM
To: HU, BIN ; Tim Irnich ; AshYoung 
; Georg Kunz 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin,

Reading all your answers (thanks for that!), I think I was confused because 
your slides contain much more content that what you really want us to approve, 
right? If I understand correctly, basically tomorrow you would like the TSC to 
*only* vote on your proposed "strategy (vision and direction) based on 
potential addressable market and potential customer needs, and our expertise 
and strength". 

That means, checking your slides, you want us to vote on slide 13. The rest, is 
just information to corroborate your reasoning of why we need a new strategy 
and why that strategy in particular (up until slide 13), or just a peek into 
potential actions we could take once the strategy is approved (after slide 13).

In conclusion, correct if I am wrong, the question you want us to vote tomorrow 
would be something like: 

Do you think OPNFV strategy should be based on?: 

* Enabling and automating stakeholders’ business transformation into DevOps 
organization
* Addressing key roadblock of other open source communities

Is my reasoning correct? or... how wrong am I? :) 

Thanks,
Manuel

On Mon, 2018-11-26 at 15:39 +, HU, BIN wrote:
> Tim,
> 
> Thank you for jumping in and offering your opinion. That's very 
> helpful and valuable.
> 
> If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same 
> question, i.e. what will we do in the next step?
> - As I clarified in the email 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g
> _opnfv-2Dtsc_mes=DwIDaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6Y
> IIHhw=ZtjwNafmJ7onuz-clvmP33vkECvLJVDEmIXUPRC5aOY=I8sAXwxhIGvELdRc
> qU20v59F880QmUcSb8j0Q2lv0zg=
> sage/4844 and earlier in this thread 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g
> _opnfv-2D=DwIDaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw
> =ZtjwNafmJ7onuz-clvmP33vkECvLJVDEmIXUPRC5aOY=7hI7uXkaHnQCxB_UlmxYUHb
> 4j2SBRylY_yyU1g0I0Ss= tsc/message/4845, this is our 1st milestone or 
> Step #1 to have a strategic plan. This milestone triggers the action 
> of Step #2 and other following steps. Those steps (or actions) are 
> outlined on slide #16.
> - Once we agree on the strategic plan, the action is the Step #2, i.e. 
> to define the details of the portfolio of what we can offer. The 
> example of details was illustrated in 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g
> _opnfv=DwIDaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=Zt
> jwNafmJ7onuz-clvmP33vkECvLJVDEmIXUPRC5aOY=kfwLgIBByerbykno_ZjrMWFwfT
> dKZnH1ptJE5FYONy4=
> -tsc/message/4845.
> - You can see the example of portfolio in 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.opnfv.org_g
> _o=DwIDaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=ZtjwNa
> fmJ7onuz-clvmP33vkECvLJVDEmIXUPRC5aOY=MXWrAS6751y_7YZJNt_Wtgw6iUMFDB
> s69zV5z0o3O54=
> pnfv-tsc/message/4845 is getting the balance of equal importance of 
> tools and reference stacks, and maximizes the value of what we can 
> offer.
> - I changed the wording of 1st bullet point on slide #16 to reflect 
> your point of #1 and #3. This is the Step #2, the immediate action 
> point triggered by the strategic plan.
> - I also changed wording on other bullets on slide #16 to reflect some 
> more details in my prior messages.
> - See attached deck v0.7.
> 
> Regarding your point #4, it is actually one of the following actions, 
> i.e. to develop a marketing message to reflect our strategy. This is 
> captured on the last bullet point on slide #16. Certainly, this is 
> another action point we need to take after we agree on the strategy.
> 
> Regarding your point #2, yes, we need all TSC members to contribute to 
> those actio

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Manuel Buil]

  + DevOps Platforms open the path for further evolution to
> > new
> > verticals in addition to NFVI.
> >   o Vertically, all feature projects are seen as different
> > verticals
> > of the DevOps platform
> >   + Currently they are all very loose dots
> >   + DevOps Platform, as a theme and horizontal "string",
> > connects those dots (and new verticals) together in a
> > systematic way
> >   * So we have a theme, and a way (i.e. horizontal DevOps Platform)
> > of
> > connecting all feature projects, and supporting other verticals
> > in
> > industry
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > I agree with your suggestion that we need to focus on implementing
> > a 
> > couple of products at one time. Thus at Step 2 Product Management
> > and 
> > Step 3 Implementation, we need to carefully define:
> > 
> >   * What are included in portfolio, e.g. those 5 I listed? Or more?
> > Or less?
> >   o Being included in portfolio does not mean it must be
> > implemented
> > immediately
> >   * What is the roadmap and timeline, and how to implement various
> > products in portfolio?
> >   o How to package each product based on existing assets?
> >   o How do we implement new product without impacting existing
> > product (i.e. evolution of platform capabilities and test
> > coverage)?
> >   o How to evolve/improve existing product to better fit the
> > picture?
> >   o What are the gaps?
> >   o What are the dependencies and which dependency should be
> > implemented first?
> >   o etc
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > The key is the details of how to implement them and when,
> > including 
> > what are additional platform capabilities and additional test
> > coverage 
> > needed to evolve in existing products.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Please let me know if you have additional comments and questions.
> > I 
> > would be happy to discuss more.
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thank you
> > 
> > Bin
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > *From:* Manuel Buil 
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:33 AM
> > *To:* HU, BIN ; Georg Kunz  > >; 
> > Ash Young 
> > *Cc:* opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Hey Bin,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Let me try to answer combining a bit both email threads. Thanks
> > for 
> > replying by the way!
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > In line with the ROI statement, as you were saying: "we are setting
> > a 
> > strategy based on potential addressable market and potential
> > customer 
> > needs, and our expertise and strength", I am afraid that the
> > different 
> > OPNFV product portfolio which you listed in the previous mail
> > address 
> > different markets and needs. This, in my opinion, will result in
> > not 
> > having a clear focus and thus still not increasing the ROI. I kind
> > of 
> > agree with Georg and Ash that so far we have probably been working
> > on 
> > too many areas (and maybe jumping onto the next new thing) and
> > never 
> > finished any completely. AFAIK, that's what our stakeholders
> > claim, 
> > right? Therefore, I am a bit afraid to jump onto the next new
> > thing 
> > with the devops line of work and that's why I was asking whether
> > you 
> > have some indications pointing to that market as an addressable
> > one 
> > for OPNFV (we definitely have skills in that area!).
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > My suggestion would be to focus on one thing which could result in
> > 2 
> > or
> > 3 "products". After a few years, I wonder if our "original product"
> > of 
> > OPNFV (the reference patform) is still interesting for anyone 
> > (specially
> > stakeholders) and thus we should focus there. According to Georg
> > and 
> > Ash's mail, it seems they have some indications that it is and we
> > are 
> > not too late. Unfortunately, I can't really tell but I'll try to 
> > investigate a bit :).
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Manuel
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 21:34 +, HU, BIN wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Georg and Ash,
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Srini]

Hi Bin,

My 2 cents from strategy perspective.  

I see that Cloud native and micro services mentioned in your presentation. But 
I did not see any Kubernetes term used anywhere. Hence, I thought I would bring 
this up.

So far, majority of the OPNFV focus seems to be supporting openstack based 
sites.  Many edge deployments are talking about using K8S.  That leads to 
supporting VNFs and CNFs using K8S.  I feel that OPNFV community can lead this 
effort on "K8S for NFV" -  from CNI requirements perspective, supporting 
various workloads (VM, container and Functions) and installation perspective. 

In summary, strategy perspective, "K8S for NFV" need to be considered, in my 
view.

Some details:

On CNI: OVN4NFV project started to develop OVN4NFV to work in K8S environment. 
But, there may be other CNIs that OPNFV community may be interested in such 
Nokia DANM and NSM (Network Service Mesh). Hence, I feel it is important for 
OPNFV community to list down requirements on CNIs for Network functions. 

On workloads:  Docker is well known for bringing up containers. For VMs, there 
are multiple options - Virtlet and Kubevirt for example.  It is good if OPNFV 
community discusses on how these can be supported.

On software provisioning/installations: There are many installation in K8S 
world - Kubespray and others.  I feel that it is important to study and 
consider new installers that are popular in K8S world and enhance them to use 
for NFV.

Thanks
Srini


-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of HU, BIN
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 7:40 AM
To: Tim Irnich ; AshYoung ; Georg Kunz 
; Manuel Buil 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Tim,

Thank you for jumping in and offering your opinion. That's very helpful and 
valuable.

If I understand correctly, Point #1 and #3 are actually the same question, i.e. 
what will we do in the next step?
- As I clarified in the email https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/4844 
and earlier in this thread https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/4845, 
this is our 1st milestone or Step #1 to have a strategic plan. This milestone 
triggers the action of Step #2 and other following steps. Those steps (or 
actions) are outlined on slide #16.
- Once we agree on the strategic plan, the action is the Step #2, i.e. to 
define the details of the portfolio of what we can offer. The example of 
details was illustrated in https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/4845.
- You can see the example of portfolio in 
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tsc/message/4845 is getting the balance of 
equal importance of tools and reference stacks, and maximizes the value of what 
we can offer.
- I changed the wording of 1st bullet point on slide #16 to reflect your point 
of #1 and #3. This is the Step #2, the immediate action point triggered by the 
strategic plan.
- I also changed wording on other bullets on slide #16 to reflect some more 
details in my prior messages.
- See attached deck v0.7.

Regarding your point #4, it is actually one of the following actions, i.e. to 
develop a marketing message to reflect our strategy. This is captured on the 
last bullet point on slide #16. Certainly, this is another action point we need 
to take after we agree on the strategy.

Regarding your point #2, yes, we need all TSC members to contribute to those 
actions, including:
- defining the portfolio
- defining the implementation and roadmap
- working with MWG to define marketing message.

I also would expect that yourself will be able to help drive one of those 
actions, for example, working with MWG on marketing message to make sure that 
it gets known externally.

With those changes on slide #16 (in attached v0.7), hopefully it gets the level 
of clarity you expected, and we can move forward.

I am looking forward to your further contribution in executing this strategy, 
especially e.g. in working with MWG for our marketing message to get it known 
externally.

Thank you again
Bin

-Original Message-
From: Tim Irnich 
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 6:37 AM
To: HU, BIN ; AshYoung ; Georg Kunz 
; Manuel Buil 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi all,

having read the entire thread again this morning, I'd like to offer the 
following thoughts to hopefully help us make progress:

- We need to make sure the decision we take triggers action and change (since I 
think we all agree that we need to change something in OPNFV).
To achieve this, we need to more clarity on the choices that are in front of us 
and their consequences. The current material does not do this clearly enough. 
It sort of says "we keep doing everything we already do and add a few things." 
IMHO it would be bet

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Ash Young]

t; cannibalization effect on current segment
>   o Thus we expand our addressable market with this new segment,
> which potentially will support unlimited verticals in addition
> to NFVI vertical.
>   * DevOps Platform, as a horizontal pipeline, is the theme, or a
> “string”, to connect all of our assets and projects together in a
> systematic way:
>   o Horizontally, DevOps Platform combines our current CI/CD
> pipeline, testing framework, and testing tools with the
> potential to evolve to a more general-purpose pipeline, test
> framework and tools with the options for customization that fits
> different verticals.
>   + We already see the need of evolution to XCI cases
>   + DevOps Platforms open the path for further evolution to new
> verticals in addition to NFVI.
>   o Vertically, all feature projects are seen as different verticals
> of the DevOps platform
>   + Currently they are all very loose dots
>   + DevOps Platform, as a theme and horizontal “string”,
> connects those dots (and new verticals) together in a
> systematic way
>   * So we have a theme, and a way (i.e. horizontal DevOps Platform) of
> connecting all feature projects, and supporting other verticals in
> industry
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with your suggestion that we need to focus on implementing a 
> couple of products at one time. Thus at Step 2 Product Management and 
> Step 3 Implementation, we need to carefully define:
> 
>   * What are included in portfolio, e.g. those 5 I listed? Or more? Or less?
>   o Being included in portfolio does not mean it must be implemented
> immediately
>   * What is the roadmap and timeline, and how to implement various
> products in portfolio?
>   o How to package each product based on existing assets?
>   o How do we implement new product without impacting existing
> product (i.e. evolution of platform capabilities and test coverage)?
>   o How to evolve/improve existing product to better fit the picture?
>   o What are the gaps?
>   o What are the dependencies and which dependency should be
> implemented first?
>   o etc
> 
>  
> 
> The key is the details of how to implement them and when, including 
> what are additional platform capabilities and additional test coverage 
> needed to evolve in existing products.
> 
>  
> 
> Please let me know if you have additional comments and questions. I 
> would be happy to discuss more.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Bin
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Manuel Buil 
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:33 AM
> *To:* HU, BIN ; Georg Kunz ; 
> Ash Young 
> *Cc:* opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
>  
> 
> Hey Bin,
> 
>  
> 
> Let me try to answer combining a bit both email threads. Thanks for 
> replying by the way!
> 
>  
> 
> In line with the ROI statement, as you were saying: "we are setting a 
> strategy based on potential addressable market and potential customer 
> needs, and our expertise and strength", I am afraid that the different 
> OPNFV product portfolio which you listed in the previous mail address 
> different markets and needs. This, in my opinion, will result in not 
> having a clear focus and thus still not increasing the ROI. I kind of 
> agree with Georg and Ash that so far we have probably been working on 
> too many areas (and maybe jumping onto the next new thing) and never 
> finished any completely. AFAIK, that's what our stakeholders claim, 
> right? Therefore, I am a bit afraid to jump onto the next new thing 
> with the devops line of work and that's why I was asking whether you 
> have some indications pointing to that market as an addressable one 
> for OPNFV (we definitely have skills in that area!).
> 
>  
> 
> My suggestion would be to focus on one thing which could result in 2 
> or
> 3 "products". After a few years, I wonder if our "original product" of 
> OPNFV (the reference patform) is still interesting for anyone 
> (specially
> stakeholders) and thus we should focus there. According to Georg and 
> Ash's mail, it seems they have some indications that it is and we are 
> not too late. Unfortunately, I can't really tell but I'll try to 
> investigate a bit :).
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Manuel
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 21:34 +, HU, BIN wrote:
> 
> Hi Georg and Ash,
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you very much for sharing your view and concern

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Tim Irnich]

d tools with the options for customization that fits
> different verticals.
>   + We already see the need of evolution to XCI cases
>   + DevOps Platforms open the path for further evolution to new
> verticals in addition to NFVI.
>   o Vertically, all feature projects are seen as different verticals
> of the DevOps platform
>   + Currently they are all very loose dots
>   + DevOps Platform, as a theme and horizontal “string”,
> connects those dots (and new verticals) together in a
> systematic way
>   * So we have a theme, and a way (i.e. horizontal DevOps Platform) of
> connecting all feature projects, and supporting other verticals in
> industry
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with your suggestion that we need to focus on implementing a
> couple of products at one time. Thus at Step 2 Product Management and
> Step 3 Implementation, we need to carefully define:
> 
>   * What are included in portfolio, e.g. those 5 I listed? Or more? Or less?
>   o Being included in portfolio does not mean it must be implemented
> immediately
>   * What is the roadmap and timeline, and how to implement various
> products in portfolio?
>   o How to package each product based on existing assets?
>   o How do we implement new product without impacting existing
> product (i.e. evolution of platform capabilities and test coverage)?
>   o How to evolve/improve existing product to better fit the picture?
>   o What are the gaps?
>   o What are the dependencies and which dependency should be
> implemented first?
>   o etc
> 
>  
> 
> The key is the details of how to implement them and when, including what
> are additional platform capabilities and additional test coverage needed
> to evolve in existing products.
> 
>  
> 
> Please let me know if you have additional comments and questions. I
> would be happy to discuss more.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Bin
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Manuel Buil 
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:33 AM
> *To:* HU, BIN ; Georg Kunz ;
> Ash Young 
> *Cc:* opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
>  
> 
> Hey Bin,
> 
>  
> 
> Let me try to answer combining a bit both email threads. Thanks for
> replying by the way!
> 
>  
> 
> In line with the ROI statement, as you were saying: "we are setting a
> strategy based on potential addressable market and potential customer
> needs, and our expertise and strength", I am afraid that the different
> OPNFV product portfolio which you listed in the previous mail address
> different markets and needs. This, in my opinion, will result in not
> having a clear focus and thus still not increasing the ROI. I kind of
> agree with Georg and Ash that so far we have probably been working on
> too many areas (and maybe jumping onto the next new thing) and never
> finished any completely. AFAIK, that's what our stakeholders claim,
> right? Therefore, I am a bit afraid to jump onto the next new thing with
> the devops line of work and that's why I was asking whether you have
> some indications pointing to that market as an addressable one for OPNFV
> (we definitely have skills in that area!).
> 
>  
> 
> My suggestion would be to focus on one thing which could result in 2 or
> 3 "products". After a few years, I wonder if our "original product" of
> OPNFV (the reference patform) is still interesting for anyone (specially
> stakeholders) and thus we should focus there. According to Georg and
> Ash's mail, it seems they have some indications that it is and we are
> not too late. Unfortunately, I can't really tell but I'll try to
> investigate a bit :).
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Manuel
> 
>  
> 
> On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 21:34 +, HU, BIN wrote:
> 
> Hi Georg and Ash,
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you very much for sharing your view and concern.
> 
>  
> 
> First of all, please refer to the message I sent earlier that tried
> to answer Manuel’s concerns. That message outlines the
> thought-process and my view to address Manuel’s 3 concerns.
> 
>  
> 
> Then back to your concern, i.e. integrated platform capability and
> compliance toolset that we are having now. I am really sorry that if
> there is a misunderstanding here. My view is that the offering (or
> the delivered product) will be defined in Step 2 in detail (as a
> Product Management function). My personal understanding is that what
> we can offer is a portfolio i

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Manuel,

Thank you for sharing your more thoughts here. I really appreciate your time 
and thinking.

I am not sure if Georg or Ash really meant that we never finished anything 
completely. (Correct me if I am wrong). Here is the status:

  *   We have integrated platform as our main product (through installers). We 
have gone through 7 releases. The stable release process is quite mature. And 
we are working on maturing XCI process.
  *   OVP / Dovetail is also quite stable and becomes mature recently.
  *   The underlying CI/CD pipeline, and related test framework and test cases 
are able to support successful stable release and OVP/Dovetail.

Of course, nothing is perfect, and there is room for further improving 
Integrated Platform and OVP/Dovetail, including add-on features of platform and 
test case coverage in Dovetail. This is more like maintaining and evolving 
existing product. The potential is limited IMHO. The reality is that despite we 
have those 2 flagship products which are very successful and can be maintained 
and evolved further, we are still losing investment significantly as you 
indicated in your 3rd concern.

My take of what Georg and Ash really meant is that we need to be carefully 
handling our existing products (i.e. Integrated Platform and OVP/Dovetail), and 
we don’t lose track of platform capabilities and related test coverage when we 
look for new strategy. The strategy and direction should evolve based on what 
we have and what we are good at. From that viewpoint, I completely agree with 
them. So the strategy of DevOps Platform, which includes the potential 
portfolio that includes existing products, is the evolution based on what we 
have and what we are good at, and opens potential for new market segment:

  *   Expanded market segments:
 *   Existing 2 products are targeted to operators in terms of NFVI 
(current segment)
 *   Potential portfolio expand the segment to all stakeholders and other 
communities in terms of DevOps pipeline (new segment)
 *   Current segment is a vertical of new segment in this picture. So those 
2 segments are orthogonal. New market segment has little cannibalization effect 
on current segment
 *   Thus we expand our addressable market with this new segment, which 
potentially will support unlimited verticals in addition to NFVI vertical.
  *   DevOps Platform, as a horizontal pipeline, is the theme, or a “string”, 
to connect all of our assets and projects together in a systematic way:
 *   Horizontally, DevOps Platform combines our current CI/CD pipeline, 
testing framework, and testing tools with the potential to evolve to a more 
general-purpose pipeline, test framework and tools with the options for 
customization that fits different verticals.
*   We already see the need of evolution to XCI cases
*   DevOps Platforms open the path for further evolution to new 
verticals in addition to NFVI.
 *   Vertically, all feature projects are seen as different verticals of 
the DevOps platform
*   Currently they are all very loose dots
*   DevOps Platform, as a theme and horizontal “string”, connects those 
dots (and new verticals) together in a systematic way
  *   So we have a theme, and a way (i.e. horizontal DevOps Platform) of 
connecting all feature projects, and supporting other verticals in industry

I agree with your suggestion that we need to focus on implementing a couple of 
products at one time. Thus at Step 2 Product Management and Step 3 
Implementation, we need to carefully define:

  *   What are included in portfolio, e.g. those 5 I listed? Or more? Or less?
 *   Being included in portfolio does not mean it must be implemented 
immediately
  *   What is the roadmap and timeline, and how to implement various products 
in portfolio?
 *   How to package each product based on existing assets?
 *   How do we implement new product without impacting existing product 
(i.e. evolution of platform capabilities and test coverage)?
 *   How to evolve/improve existing product to better fit the picture?
 *   What are the gaps?
 *   What are the dependencies and which dependency should be implemented 
first?
 *   etc

The key is the details of how to implement them and when, including what are 
additional platform capabilities and additional test coverage needed to evolve 
in existing products.

Please let me know if you have additional comments and questions. I would be 
happy to discuss more.

Thank you
Bin

From: Manuel Buil 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 9:33 AM
To: HU, BIN ; Georg Kunz ; Ash Young 

Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hey Bin,

Let me try to answer combining a bit both email threads. Thanks for replying by 
the way!

In line with the ROI statement, as you were saying: "we are setting a strategy 
based on potential addressable market and pote

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Manuel Buil]

Hey Bin,

Let me try to answer combining a bit both email threads. Thanks for
replying by the way!

In line with the ROI statement, as you were saying: "we are setting a
strategy based on potential addressable market and potential customer
needs, and our expertise and strength", I am afraid that the different
OPNFV product portfolio which you listed in the previous mail address
different markets and needs. This, in my opinion, will result in not
having a clear focus and thus still not increasing the ROI. I kind of
agree with Georg and Ash that so far we have probably been working on
too many areas (and maybe jumping onto the next new thing) and never
finished any completely. AFAIK, that's what our stakeholders claim,
right? Therefore, I am a bit afraid to jump onto the next new thing
with the devops line of work and that's why I was asking whether you
have some indications pointing to that market as an addressable one for
OPNFV (we definitely have skills in that area!).

My suggestion would be to focus on one thing which could result in 2 or
3 "products". After a few years, I wonder if our "original product" of
OPNFV (the reference patform) is still interesting for anyone
(specially stakeholders) and thus we should focus there. According to
Georg and Ash's mail, it seems they have some indications that it is
and we are not too late. Unfortunately, I can't really tell but I'll
try to investigate a bit :).

Regards,
Manuel

On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 21:34 +, HU, BIN wrote:
> Hi Georg and Ash,
>  
> Thank you very much for sharing your view and concern.
>  
> First of all, please refer to the message I sent earlier that tried
> to answer Manuel’s concerns. That message outlines the thought-
> process and my view to address Manuel’s 3 concerns.
>  
> Then back to your concern, i.e. integrated platform capability and
> compliance toolset that we are having now. I am really sorry that if
> there is a misunderstanding here. My view is that the offering (or
> the delivered product) will be defined in Step 2 in detail (as a
> Product Management function). My personal understanding is that what
> we can offer is a portfolio instead of a single product. Our OPNFV
> product portfolio may include:
> DevOps solution as outlined in User Story on slide #12.
> A packaged testing tool chain that can be offered standalone
> An Integrated Platform Capabilities grown from our DevOps pipeline
> (our original product)
> A conformance testing solution of the integrated platform (our CVP /
> Dovetail)
> A LaaS infrastructure solution
> Etc.
>  
> Just like a cloud provider has a portfolio of products and services,
> including fundamental IaaS, PaaS and SaaS solutions and services. So
> it is a portfolio.
>  
> Please note that I used the word “Product” to  illustrate what we can
> offer. It does not mean anything commercial.
>  
> Hopefully I clarified it. Of course, we cannot do it all at one time.
> so when we define product portfolio in Step 2, we also need to define
> the roadmap and timeline in long term view. Once we have the
> strategy, and then portfolio and roadmap, we will have a very good
> story to market it and attract investment and resources back, and of
> course the most important is to implement it with necessary
> resources.
>  
> Please let me know if you have more questions.
>  
> Thank you
> Bin
>  
> From: Georg Kunz  
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:04 AM
> To: Ash Young ; HU, BIN 
> Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
>  
> Hi Bin, Ash, all,
>  
> I’d like to pick up Manuel’s question about the value that our
> stakeholders would like to see and Ash’s point of building a
> reference platform: I believe that both aspects point towards the
> need for strengthening our compliance program – which is already
> based on a broad base of great test tools. OVP does not yet consume
> enough of the available tests for various reasons – having to admit
> this as a former Dovetail PTL. But I also think that we can still
> improve the capabilities of the OPNFV platform – by means of
> integration and closing gaps upstream. This is a requirement for
> adding additional tests covering NFV capabilities to the
> corresponding test tools and then eventually to OVP. Additional NFV
> capabilities we could think about include, for instance, L2GW, SR-
> IOV, LBaaS, FWaaS – in addition to emerging use cases like edge
> computing and cloud native computing, i.e., covering both OpenStack
> and K8s-based deployments.
>  
> So, in the context of the proposed DevOps approach, I am a little
> concerned that we lose track of enabling platform capabilities which
> are a requirement for

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

Hi Georg and Ash,

Thank you very much for sharing your view and concern.

First of all, please refer to the message I sent earlier that tried to answer 
Manuel’s concerns. That message outlines the thought-process and my view to 
address Manuel’s 3 concerns.

Then back to your concern, i.e. integrated platform capability and compliance 
toolset that we are having now. I am really sorry that if there is a 
misunderstanding here. My view is that the offering (or the delivered product) 
will be defined in Step 2 in detail (as a Product Management function). My 
personal understanding is that what we can offer is a portfolio instead of a 
single product. Our OPNFV product portfolio may include:

  *   DevOps solution as outlined in User Story on slide #12.
  *   A packaged testing tool chain that can be offered standalone
  *   An Integrated Platform Capabilities grown from our DevOps pipeline (our 
original product)
  *   A conformance testing solution of the integrated platform (our CVP / 
Dovetail)
  *   A LaaS infrastructure solution
  *   Etc.

Just like a cloud provider has a portfolio of products and services, including 
fundamental IaaS, PaaS and SaaS solutions and services. So it is a portfolio.

Please note that I used the word “Product” to  illustrate what we can offer. It 
does not mean anything commercial.

Hopefully I clarified it. Of course, we cannot do it all at one time. so when 
we define product portfolio in Step 2, we also need to define the roadmap and 
timeline in long term view. Once we have the strategy, and then portfolio and 
roadmap, we will have a very good story to market it and attract investment and 
resources back, and of course the most important is to implement it with 
necessary resources.

Please let me know if you have more questions.

Thank you
Bin

From: Georg Kunz 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 9:04 AM
To: Ash Young ; HU, BIN 
Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin, Ash, all,

I’d like to pick up Manuel’s question about the value that our stakeholders 
would like to see and Ash’s point of building a reference platform: I believe 
that both aspects point towards the need for strengthening our compliance 
program – which is already based on a broad base of great test tools. OVP does 
not yet consume enough of the available tests for various reasons – having to 
admit this as a former Dovetail PTL. But I also think that we can still improve 
the capabilities of the OPNFV platform – by means of integration and closing 
gaps upstream. This is a requirement for adding additional tests covering NFV 
capabilities to the corresponding test tools and then eventually to OVP. 
Additional NFV capabilities we could think about include, for instance, L2GW, 
SR-IOV, LBaaS, FWaaS – in addition to emerging use cases like edge computing 
and cloud native computing, i.e., covering both OpenStack and K8s-based 
deployments.

So, in the context of the proposed DevOps approach, I am a little concerned 
that we lose track of enabling platform capabilities which are a requirement 
for the test tools and the compliance program. We need to make sure that this 
does not get out of focus too much (in my opinion). Specifically, if the main 
deliverable of OPNFV is an integration and CI framework, who do we consider 
performs the integration of components into a (reference) software stack: the 
users of OPNFV (using the new toolchain) or still OPNFV itself, leveraging the 
new toolchain?

Best regards
Georg

From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> 
mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> On Behalf Of Ash 
Young
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:24 PM
To: HU, BIN mailto:bh5...@att.com>>
Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin,

When we first created OPNFV, we set out to resolve the gaps we needed for the 
NFVI, which we saw as missing in the various open sourced projects. It was 
focused on NFV, not upon being the best installer of OpenStack or some other 
component that we said could be leveraged, but which was still deemed as not 
meeting our needs. I don't feel we ever completed this task before moving on to 
orchestration, because it became the next shiny thing. But what are we 
orchestrating if things are not instrumented to be orchestrated in a highly 
efficient manner. Recently, I met with an operator who said that our SDN 
controllers were simply too slow to meet their objectives. This statement is 
not intended as a slam of any of the controller projects. It's just meant as a 
point of reference that there's a need to implement a feature that is 
consumable for the intended recipient.

Your task and the task of the TSC is not an easy one. And I really love how our 
CI/CD

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[HU, BIN]

.

Please let me know if you have further questions, and I would be happy to 
discuss further.

Thank you
Bin

From: Manuel Buil 
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:16 AM
To: HU, BIN ; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin,

Here are some concerns I have, hopefully I am not the only one:

- By your slides I understand that you suggest to focus on doing work which 
could be reused internally by the companies involved in OPNFV to build their 
devops platform for NFV solutions. I wonder whether there is a niche there and 
how the relevant internal departments of the different companies (stakeholders 
in your slides) are currently doing their NFV devops activities and whether 
they are happy or they are looking for an alternative. Talking about open 
source communities, ODL and Openstack are currently happy with their CI/CD 
solution and AFAIK, not looking for something else (please correct me if I am 
wrong). Do we have any sort of indication that this direction would be useful 
by companies involved in OPNFV? Perhaps we all could talk internally to check 
this and even gather some pain points with current tools and desired features.

- I understand that the end goal of "the evolution of pharos lab" is having a 
lab based on cloud services. I am a bit concerned about this because to some 
extend we would lose control of our infrastructure and will need to rely on 
what the providers give us (which most of the times is abstracted) and perhaps 
we will lose geographical distribution or the heterogeneity of it. Let alone 
having the possibility to connect some exotic hardware to test edge use cases 
or IoT use cases (e.g. having a pool of raspberries connected to our infra).

- Regarding the community growth, I think that attending developer-oriented 
events will not be enough to gather new developers in OPNFV. I am actually not 
sure how to address this problem which, in my opinion, is getting acute. A big 
part of the people who stopped working in OPNFV in the last months was not 
because they did not find OPNFV attractive or cool but because their employers 
prioritized other communities (e.g. ONAP) or some internal work over OPNFV. The 
best approach for me would be to reach those employers (I guess they are the 
stakeholders in the slides) and ask: what would you like to see in OPNFV in 
order to increase the amount of resources you currently provide? or, what you 
did not like in OPNFV which resulted in you decreasing the amount of developers 
in OPNFV during the last months?. Perhaps the board could be a good place to 
ask this?

It would be nice to know other poeple's opinion too! My view might be 
completely wrong... :)

Regards,
Manuel




On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 15:23 +, HU, BIN wrote:
Hello community,

Thank you for the input and discussion of OPNFV Strategy and 
Plan<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_download_attachments_2925933_OPNFV-2520Strategy-2520and-2520Plan-2520v0.6.pptx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1542680159000-26api-3Dv2=DwMFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=A8-IuvSi3k8fDHw69qbIHEIdQFarHewiFhRhiDYDsQ8=UOWYKKjqsLqrPPnbj-n8YG0skoN64FJe9wnHT2Vy_mU=>
 in the past 3 weeks, including in TSC discussion and Weekly Technical 
Discussions.

One critical role of TSC is to set up the direction and vision. So please 
continue your input and discussion in the mailing list in order to further 
mature the vision and strategy for the future. We target for TSC to approve the 
strategy and vision next week Nov 27 as the 1st milestone, if we can mature the 
discussion. Then we can continue to work on next steps for details of 
deliverables that fit our resource availability and capability.

Thank you and I am looking forward to more inputs and discussions.

Bin

From: HU, BIN
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:16 PM
To: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
Subject: Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hello community,

At the 1st meeting of our new TSC today, we kicked off a discussion of OPNFV 
Strategic 
Plan<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_download_attachments_2925933_OPNFV-2520Strategy-2520and-2520Plan-2520v0.5.pptx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1540961098489-26api-3Dv2=DwMFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=A8-IuvSi3k8fDHw69qbIHEIdQFarHewiFhRhiDYDsQ8=HZjo3mS2wXWCQqkq7OGyvpbf1JcpolFNEIqkdDjgJis=>.
 The outline of the OPNFV Strategic 
Plan<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__wiki.opnfv.org_download_attachments_2925933_OPNFV-2520Strategy-2520and-2520Plan-2520v0.5.pptx-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1540961098489-26api-3Dv2=DwMFaQ=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg=6qPcDOqMgwf1K_r6YIIHhw=A8-IuvSi3k8fDHw69qbIHEIdQFarHewiFhRhiDYDsQ8=HZjo3mS2wXWCQqkq7OGyvpbf1JcpolFN

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Bin, Ash, all,

I’d like to pick up Manuel’s question about the value that our stakeholders 
would like to see and Ash’s point of building a reference platform: I believe 
that both aspects point towards the need for strengthening our compliance 
program – which is already based on a broad base of great test tools. OVP does 
not yet consume enough of the available tests for various reasons – having to 
admit this as a former Dovetail PTL. But I also think that we can still improve 
the capabilities of the OPNFV platform – by means of integration and closing 
gaps upstream. This is a requirement for adding additional tests covering NFV 
capabilities to the corresponding test tools and then eventually to OVP. 
Additional NFV capabilities we could think about include, for instance, L2GW, 
SR-IOV, LBaaS, FWaaS – in addition to emerging use cases like edge computing 
and cloud native computing, i.e., covering both OpenStack and K8s-based 
deployments.

So, in the context of the proposed DevOps approach, I am a little concerned 
that we lose track of enabling platform capabilities which are a requirement 
for the test tools and the compliance program. We need to make sure that this 
does not get out of focus too much (in my opinion). Specifically, if the main 
deliverable of OPNFV is an integration and CI framework, who do we consider 
performs the integration of components into a (reference) software stack: the 
users of OPNFV (using the new toolchain) or still OPNFV itself, leveraging the 
new toolchain?

Best regards
Georg

From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org  On Behalf Of Ash 
Young
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:24 PM
To: HU, BIN 
Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

Hi Bin,

When we first created OPNFV, we set out to resolve the gaps we needed for the 
NFVI, which we saw as missing in the various open sourced projects. It was 
focused on NFV, not upon being the best installer of OpenStack or some other 
component that we said could be leveraged, but which was still deemed as not 
meeting our needs. I don't feel we ever completed this task before moving on to 
orchestration, because it became the next shiny thing. But what are we 
orchestrating if things are not instrumented to be orchestrated in a highly 
efficient manner. Recently, I met with an operator who said that our SDN 
controllers were simply too slow to meet their objectives. This statement is 
not intended as a slam of any of the controller projects. It's just meant as a 
point of reference that there's a need to implement a feature that is 
consumable for the intended recipient.

Your task and the task of the TSC is not an easy one. And I really love how our 
CI/CD and DevOps folks have matured over these years. But I think this cannot 
be the major mission for OPNFV. I think we are still missing that E2E reference 
architecture and stack that be easily leveraged. With that said, I do NOT 
propose we throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd like to propose a 
solution for attracting more developers to our community and still develop 
features and components that are missing, but which resolve the gaps identified 
years ago.

What we're doing is some really good stuff. But I would still like to see a 
smaller group drive a tightly coupled framework that can be easily leveraged by 
the consumers with a top level API, and which can figure out how to best 
implement certain features/component projects within OPNFV into this framework, 
and can also develop whatever new features might be missing.

At the end of the day, I have shortened my list of projects I am participating 
in. I truly believe that OPNFV is very relevant and needed, but struggles too 
much trying to be like other projects out there. I'd love for us to get back to 
why we formed in the first place. But whatever you and the other TSC members 
decide, I'll support. We have already made provisions in our charter for what I 
am asking for. But I do not wish to be the tail wagging the dog. I see the need 
for these other things we're doing too. And I certainly see the challenge that 
you're now wrestling with. I am looking forward to an amazing year.

Best,

Ash

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:23 AM HU, BIN mailto:bh5...@att.com>> 
wrote:
Hello community,

Thank you for the input and discussion of OPNFV Strategy and 
Plan<https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/2925933/OPNFV%20Strategy%20and%20Plan%20v0.6.pptx?version=1=1542680159000=v2>
 in the past 3 weeks, including in TSC discussion and Weekly Technical 
Discussions.

One critical role of TSC is to set up the direction and vision. So please 
continue your input and discussion in the mailing list in order to further 
mature the vision and strategy for the future. We target for TSC to approve the 
strategy and vision next week Nov 27 as the 1st milestone, if we can mature the 
discussion. Then we can continue to work o

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Ash Young]

Hi Bin,

When we first created OPNFV, we set out to resolve the gaps we needed for
the NFVI, which we saw as missing in the various open sourced projects. It
was focused on NFV, not upon being the best installer of OpenStack or some
other component that we said could be leveraged, but which was still deemed
as not meeting our needs. I don't feel we ever completed this task before
moving on to orchestration, because it became the next shiny thing. But
what are we orchestrating if things are not instrumented to be orchestrated
in a highly efficient manner. Recently, I met with an operator who said
that our SDN controllers were simply too slow to meet their objectives.
This statement is not intended as a slam of any of the controller projects.
It's just meant as a point of reference that there's a need to implement a
feature that is consumable for the intended recipient.

Your task and the task of the TSC is not an easy one. And I really love how
our CI/CD and DevOps folks have matured over these years. But I think this
cannot be the major mission for OPNFV. I think we are still missing that
E2E reference architecture and stack that be easily leveraged. With that
said, I do NOT propose we throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd like
to propose a solution for attracting more developers to our community and
still develop features and components that are missing, but which resolve
the gaps identified years ago.

What we're doing is some really good stuff. But I would still like to see a
smaller group drive a tightly coupled framework that can be easily
leveraged by the consumers with a top level API, and which can figure out
how to best implement certain features/component projects within OPNFV into
this framework, and can also develop whatever new features might be
missing.

At the end of the day, I have shortened my list of projects I am
participating in. I truly believe that OPNFV is very relevant and needed,
but struggles too much trying to be like other projects out there. I'd love
for us to get back to why we formed in the first place. But whatever you
and the other TSC members decide, I'll support. We have already made
provisions in our charter for what I am asking for. But I do not wish to be
the tail wagging the dog. I see the need for these other things we're doing
too. And I certainly see the challenge that you're now wrestling with. I am
looking forward to an amazing year.

Best,

Ash

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 9:23 AM HU, BIN  wrote:

> Hello community,
>
>
>
> Thank you for the input and discussion of OPNFV Strategy and Plan
> 
> in the past 3 weeks, including in TSC discussion and Weekly Technical
> Discussions.
>
>
>
> One critical role of TSC is to set up the direction and vision. So please
> continue your input and discussion in the mailing list in order to further
> mature the vision and strategy for the future. We target for TSC to approve
> the strategy and vision next week Nov 27 as the 1st milestone, if we can
> mature the discussion. Then we can continue to work on next steps for
> details of deliverables that fit our resource availability and capability.
>
>
>
> Thank you and I am looking forward to more inputs and discussions.
>
>
>
> Bin
>
>
>
> *From:* HU, BIN
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:16 PM
> *To:* opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
>
>
>
> Hello community,
>
>
>
> At the 1st meeting of our new TSC today, we kicked off a discussion of OPNFV
> Strategic Plan
> .
> The outline of the OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> includes:
>
>- First 3 agenda items outline the current status of OPNFV (slide
>#3-#8), which is a Problem Statement
>   - Slide #7 is a summary of input from new TSC members.
>- Then it talks about key objectives of evolving OPNFV (slide #10),
>focusing on
>   - Stakeholder-oriented business opportunity
>   - Technology excellence
>   - Community growth
>- Slide #11-#13 talks about stakeholder-oriented business opportunity,
>including
>   - Why should we evolve to DevOps platform
>   - A user story
>   - OPNFV new strategy, including addressing key roadblocks of other
>   communities including ONAP, OpenStack and Acumos
>- Slide #14 talks about technology excellence, such as cloud-native
>and microservices, edge, and a long-term vision of cloud-services based
>toolchain
>- Slide #15 talks about community growth
>- Slide #16 talks about the next step to develop a detailed work plan
>
>
>
> We would like community involvement in discussing OPNFV strategic 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan

[Manuel Buil]

Hi Bin,
Here are some concerns I have, hopefully I am not the only one:
- By your slides I understand that you suggest to focus on doing work
which could be reused internally by the companies involved in OPNFV to
build their devops platform for NFV solutions. I wonder whether there
is a niche there and how the relevant internal departments of the
different companies (stakeholders in your slides) are currently doing
their NFV devops activities and whether they are happy or they are
looking for an alternative. Talking about open source communities, ODL
and Openstack are currently happy with their CI/CD solution and AFAIK,
not looking for something else (please correct me if I am wrong). Do we
have any sort of indication that this direction would be useful by
companies involved in OPNFV? Perhaps we all could talk internally to
check this and even gather some pain points with current tools and
desired features.
- I understand that the end goal of "the evolution of pharos lab" is
having a lab based on cloud services. I am a bit concerned about this
because to some extend we would lose control of our infrastructure and
will need to rely on what the providers give us (which most of the
times is abstracted) and perhaps we will lose geographical distribution
or the heterogeneity of it. Let alone having the possibility to connect
some exotic hardware to test edge use cases or IoT use cases (e.g.
having a pool of raspberries connected to our infra).
- Regarding the community growth, I think that attending developer-
oriented events will not be enough to gather new developers in OPNFV. I
am actually not sure how to address this problem which, in my opinion,
is getting acute. A big part of the people who stopped working in OPNFV
in the last months was not because they did not find OPNFV attractive
or cool but because their employers prioritized other communities (e.g.
ONAP) or some internal work over OPNFV. The best approach for me would
be to reach those employers (I guess they are the stakeholders in the
slides) and ask: what would you like to see in OPNFV in order to
increase the amount of resources you currently provide? or, what you
did not like in OPNFV which resulted in you decreasing the amount of
developers in OPNFV during the last months?. Perhaps the board could be
a good place to ask this?
It would be nice to know other poeple's opinion too! My view might be
completely wrong... :)
Regards,Manuel



On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 15:23 +, HU, BIN wrote:
> Hello community,
>  
> Thank you for the input and discussion of 
> OPNFV Strategy and Plan in the past 3 weeks, including in TSC
> discussion and Weekly Technical Discussions.
>  
> One critical role of TSC is to set up the direction and vision. So
> please continue your input and discussion in the mailing list in
> order to further mature the vision and strategy for the future. We
> target for TSC to approve the strategy
>  and vision next week Nov 27 as the 1st milestone, if we can mature
> the discussion. Then we can continue to work on next steps for
> details of deliverables that fit our resource availability and
> capability.
>  
> Thank you and I am looking forward to more inputs and discussions.
>  
> Bin
>  
> 
> 
> From: HU, BIN 
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:16 PM
> 
> To: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 
> Subject: Discussion of OPNFV Strategic Plan
> 
> 
>  
> Hello community,
>  
> At the 1st meeting of our new TSC today, we kicked off a discussion
> of
> OPNFV
>  Strategic Plan. The outline of the 
> OPNFV Strategic Plan includes:
> 
> First 3 agenda items outline the current status of OPNFV (slide #3-
> #8), which is a Problem Statement
> 
> Slide #7 is a summary of input from new TSC members.
> Then it talks about key objectives of evolving OPNFV (slide #10),
> focusing on
> 
> Stakeholder-oriented business opportunityTechnology
> excellenceCommunity growth
> Slide #11-#13 talks about stakeholder-oriented business opportunity,
> including
> 
> Why should we evolve to DevOps platformA user storyOPNFV new
> strategy, including addressing key roadblocks of other communities
> including ONAP, OpenStack and Acumos
> Slide #14 talks about technology excellence, such as cloud-native and
> microservices, edge, and a long-term vision of cloud-services based
> toolchainSlide #15 talks about community growthSlide #16 talks about
> the next step to develop a detailed work plan
>  
> We would like community involvement in discussing OPNFV strategic
> plan, and shaping OPNFV’s future. So we plan to discuss it in the
> Weekly Technical Discussion on Nov 8.
>  
> Meanwhile, please feel free to give any feedback via email so that
> the discussion on Nov. 8 will be more effective and productive.
>  
> Thank you and look forward to everyone’s involvement and feedback.
>  
> Bin
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> 
> View/Reply Online (#4834):