2019 06 05

Owned by Farheen Cefalu
Last updated: Jun 12, 2019
10 min read

Audio Recording

Minutes

  1. Call for Scribe (minutes owner) Farheen Cefalu

  2. Roll Call & Quorum Check 

    Company

    		Contact NameAttendanceAlternate ContactAttendance

    AT&T

    Jack Murray Co-Chair

    		x

    China Mobile

    Jinri Huang Co-Chair

    		x

    Deutsche Telekom 

    David Streibl

    		x

    NTT DOCOMO

    Toshiro Kawahara

    		x

    Orange

    Vincent Danno

    		x

    Verizon

    Viswa Kumar

    		x

  3. Review and Agree to Minutes of Previous Meetings
    1. The minutes of the prior meeting were reviewed, and there were no corrections. On motion made by David Streibl and seconded by Jinri the minutes of the June 29, 2019 meeting were the approved by the TOC members. 
      1. VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
  4. Review of Today's Agenda
    1. Jinri - Add Face to Face discussion 
    2. Vincent - Recommending to end times as scheduled.
    3. Lusheng - Approval from the TOC to accept Seed Code contribution.
    4. Jack - Proposing a project list for the "A" release discussion
  5. Status of Open Action Items (Old Business) 
    1. Action / TOC take a vote on the Near Real Time RIC project proposal sent by Tapio Tallgren. 
      1. Scope would not include the RAN or ONAP except for testing purposes.  Our proposal is to have our project technical leader for the project.
      2. Jinri - we need a synchronization meeting once a month with WG3.  
        1. Vincent - Noting that this is not specific to this proposal.  We will have the same thing to consider for future projects.  We need to have the right tools in place here as we are doing in the Alliance.  We have to start somewhere so we have to be careful not to put too many barriers to what we want to do.  I think it is good to start the work.  Nokia has agreed to align with WG3. 
          1. Jinri - I don't want to hinder progress.  I want to make it crystal clear that we want to have this mechanism in place prior to starting to work.
            1. David S.  I agree with Vince.  It should be an important topic for the Tokyo meeting.
              1. Jinri - it is on the agenda for the f2f.
                1. Jack -  We have to have the discussions about whether the WG is tightly aligned with their work or more flexible. A lot of the non functional requirements are not in the domain of the work group in general and we have to work on the Alliance side to find out who will be working on those activities.  Yes, that is a part of this A release cycle.  I think it is important to work through that process.  It's probably more around requirements the PTL and the epic responsibilities.  To make them successful we have to support them.
                  1. David - We also need the synchronization between the requirements committee and the working groups.  I suggested to Claudio of WG3 was to join the calls of the requirements committee.  We need to create the space for the collaboration early on so everyone knows whats happening on all sides.
                  2. Vincent - this is an important discussion and we need to find the right balance between process and encouraging contributions.  If our process is too heavy we will not have contributions.  Keep subcommittees to a minimum.  We need a balance.  Because this is release A we are at the start and should encourage the work.  For now the lightweight ad-hoc process is fine.  It is good to add it to the agenda to the next meeting.  We can look at a long term framework not in release A but the future.  To summarize we should start with something simple.  Let's make sure we are addressing the question but we are keeping it simple. 
                    1. Jack I agree.  keep it simple move quickly and iterate.  It is the responsibility of TOC is oversight.  Votes are not permanent.  We can change in the future according to projects ability to grow.
              2. Phil - Projects are around repos and the projects go hand in hand.  Is this on the Apache side or the O-RAN Alliance side?
                1. I suggest we do this using a template for the process to create a project.  This template should bring up which license is being used.
                  1. Tapio this is under the Apache license.
                2. Jack -  Is it the project or the repo that is defined by the license.
                  1. Phil - You can have two licenses in a repo but does the committer of the project want two licenses?  We want to make it clear up front when creating a project.  It's a question for the TOC.  
                  2. Jack - This is for Apache.  We're going to take it incrementally with projects first.  then PTL, then committers.
                  3. Phil - Tapio provided the list of committers who will have commit rights.
      3. The new NRT-RIC project and committers for the O-RAN SC was reviewed . On motion made by Vincent and seconded by David creating the Near Real time RIC project was approved by the TOC members. 
        1. VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
      4. PTL role for the first Near Real Time RIC project.  Jack - I am in favor of the TOC voting for the PTL role.
        1. We have a proposal that Thoraf Czichy as the PTL.  Check Thoraf's Linked In profile.
      5. Make Thoralf the PTL for the Near Real Time RIC project. On motion made by Jack and seconded by David making Thoralf the PTL for Near Real Time RIC project was approved by the TOC members. 
        1. VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
    1. Action / huangjinri@chinamobile.com send a reflector to highlight O-RAN members to attend the Shanghai O-RAN Alliance meeting following the Tokyo meeting.
    2. Action/ Former user (Deleted) send out a poll for a color that begins with "a" for the A release.
      1. Holding because the wiki had a conflict.  Action/David put out a poll to select a fish and which fish name for release A.  Try not to pick a complicated name.
    3. Action / Former user (Deleted) will make a request over the email chain about the June 5th deadline.  There is an interest from Intel, Radisys, Inspur, China Mobile to contribute seed code and they will need the O-RAN licenses in standard plain text.
      1. Charter for the O-RAN specification project has been finalized and approved by the O-RAN legal team and this has been run by Scott.  There is a charter a license and a contributors agreement that needs to be signed and associated with that project.  Stefan has prepared the documents in PDF form and will be distributed for the EC tomorrow at Thursday.  We have to make sure it gets distributed to EC members.  Jinri - Yes he has notified the EC members.  The O-RAN license will be available after the Thursday's meeting.
      2. Lusheng - From a software seed code perspective can we also claim a license claim text?  It is legal language and need help with O-RAN.
      3. Seed code request was unable to do through email.  I will make the request later on this call for other repos that are ready for creation.
      4. Action / Lusheng - I will provide a more detailed spreadsheet.  I received the information last night.
      5. Jinri - Back to the software license.  There was a discussion around applicable law.  applicable law will be in the U.S.   We will request to change the applicable law to Germany.
        1. Jack - I may be biased.  It is best to do this through email.  On legal matters I don't want to mis-speak.  Please send request through email.
        2. Out of the seed code projects that are here it doesn't say what licenses we are under.  
          1. Radisys will use O-RAN, Intel has both, China Mobile has O-RAN.
    4. Action  Former user (Deleted) will follow up with Phil's backup regarding the CLA because China Mobile is ready to contribute code.
      1. Jack - Phil do you have a CLA platform for the contributor agreement. 
        1. Phil - Yes, we have a tool for the O-RAN Alliance side will be implemented there.  TOC do you want to have a CLA on the Apache 2? It is optional.  
          1. Jack - Should we use the CLA for the open source software community project as well.  This way you will have a record of who signed up for which open source community or O-RAN specification.  I don't know how many have dual licenses?  Phil - we are in new territory.  Jack - I think it is better to sign one or the other instead of both.  We'll put the thought process in place and we will know signed for one and not the other.  Phil - Agreed.
          2. Any questions or concerns?  The CLA content does exist.  Action/Jack send out the CLA to the list.  Stefan published it ahead of the EC meeting to approve.  
    5. Action / Former user (Deleted)from AT&T is coordinating the Requirements and Software sub-committee meetings.
      1. Working document under the Contributions link.
        1. Intel, Samsung attended.  The meeting was recorded and will be loaded into the wiki meetings page.  Post your comments on the Contributions page.
        2. Jinri - Did any co-chairs from the O-RAN Alliance attend the meeting?
          1. No.  It was not a European friendly time slot.  Internally WG1, 2, and 6 were socialized and we got some feedback.
    6. Action / Former user (Deleted)invite all the WG chairs to the Requirements and Software Architecture meetings.  One of the principles of TOC is to align the WGs.
      1. Jinri - I sent an email to the working group chairs.  I am not sure how many working group members were invited.  Action / Jinri send out the invitation to remind the co-chairs about Rittwik's meeting.
    7. Action/ Jun Hyuk Song Send out the corrections you made to the A release requirements document to the reflector (toc@lists.o-ran-sc.org).
      1. He was on the call last night and gave a lot of feedback.
    8. Action / Farheen Cefalu update next weeks meeting to two hours.
  2. Standing Agenda Items (Brief Status of Ongoing Activities)
    1. Release Manager/Release Planning: Weekly TOC Scheduling
      1. M0 will not be a traditional milestone because we didn't have enough prep time.  M0 will be compressed.  This requirements document should be pretty mature by the time we reach M0.  Look at Rittwik's document.  A lot of epics are in there.  We will be compressed in M1 but will work through those requirements.  The Software Committees job is to go through the epics and put them in jira.
      2. Lusheng - Setting up a Jira for the project is able to set up pretty quickly.  Maybe a couple days.
    2. Report out from PTL: Stand-Up & Report Out on Blockers

    3. Test & Integration Planning

    4. Report Out of Sub-Committees

  3. New Agenda Items (New Business): New Items Submitted (+speaker) & Open Call to TOC For Additional Items 

    1. Jinri - Add Face to Face discussion Jinri, Toshiro, Vincent will send Christian Gallard from Orange, Viswa will send someone from Verizon O-RAN side.  KJ will be there from AT&T.  
      1. Reviewed Jinri's powerpoint. 
      2. Action/Farheen  update the time on the F2F.  Morning 8:30AM - noon Tokyo Japanese time.  This will make is easier for the U.S. to join.  
      3. This is our first face to face meeting to increase the visibility of the software community.  The channel is not good.  I would like to take this opportunity to improve the channel.
      4. Finalize the Software document.  This will be a key focus in our face to face meeting.  
        1. Software document is the architecture and requirements documents.
        2. Peter Moonki Hong - Is this only for O-RAN members?  No this is open to everyone.  For the face to face 99% are O-RAN members. Is registration required?  No registration needed.  We should put up the remote access on the wiki.  It's open to attend remotely.  We need clarification on times.  Action / Farheen For the F2F use the zoom meeting bridge for people to join remotely and post on the wiki.
        3. Agenda item 7.  The purpose is to give an introduction to the whole audience.
        4. I would like to invite TOC-WG3 to joint session.  We will need Rittwik or someone else prepare an introduction.
          1. Will someone from Nokia be there?  Yes.  Action/Rittwik will prepare something for the face to face meeting with TOC WG3
          2. WG8 is about to publish their software architecture and their API interface requirements specification.  
          3. Is Rittwik OK with 2 hours.
    2. Vincent - Recommending to end times as scheduled.
    3. Lusheng - Approval from the TOC to accept Seed Code contribution.
      1. Lusheng sharing seed code contribution list.  
        1. Inspur related to infrastructure platform.
        2. Redisys we provided the committer names and contact.  The original name Radisys 5G is not good for open source.  Will talk to them later today.
        3. Will finalize Measurement campaign and machine learning apps.  
        4. UE Manager 
        5. Configure Radio Network Information Base. We have the RIC platform as a newly formed project.  I will talk to Thoralf later.  Action/Lusheng send to Farheen to include in the minutes.
        6. Viswa - Approval is for seed code only?  yes.  This is a seed code acceptance not new projects, correct?
        7. Are these these the new committers.  Phil - It would be strange to have a project that has multiple committers. Have an umbrella project with sub projects.  Each sub-project with different committers.  Lusheng - yes, we can do that.  Phil - The folks on the IT side only see repos.  You want command and control.  The committers are overseeing the code contributions within a repo.  Whether we map each repo to a subproject has not been addressed.  
          1. Jack - We're gathering seed code and our next step is to map that to projects.  We don't know how to map it until everyone can see it.
            1. Phil The code that's in the RIC platform do you need to have an understanding of how all the pieces fit?  If no then have sub-projects.  If yes, then sub-projects across all projects.  
            2. Radisys, Nokia, and AT&T are contributed.  But right now to get their code in we need to evaluate to make into a project.  Right now it is specified by the companies who are contributing.  
            3. Phil - What level of access do you need with this code.  What are you planning on doing with this code during the evaluation phase?  
              1. General audience is mostly looking at it.  
            4. Phil - how much effort do we expect to go through?
            5. Lusheng - Inspur, Radisys have deadlines.  Action /Lusheng work with Phil offline and do the approval through email.
    4. Jack - Proposing a project list for the "A" release discussion
      1. We approved the near real time RIC but there are a list of projects that have to be addressed.  OCU, DCU.  I'd like to create the project so we can create the Jira entries for them so we can start working the release.  Without being able to put the projects in the project tab we are unable to begin.  It's important that we create the projects as the intent of what we intend to fill out.  Action/ Jack Bring a proposal to approve a list of projects.  It is attached to the requirements document.  I'll share that on a spreadsheet and we'll talk aobut.
        1. Focus on the rest of the projects
        2. Requirements document 
        3. Epics
  4. Planning for Next Meeting
  5. Open Discussion
  6. Any Other Business (AOB)
  7. Meeting Summary (resolutions, new action items, etc.)
    1. Action/David put out a poll to select a fish and which fish name for release A.  Try not to pick a complicated name.
    2. Action/Lusheng - I will provide a more detailed spreadsheet to Farheen.  I received more information last night.
    3. Action/Jack send out the CLA to the list.  Stefan published it ahead of the EC meeting to approve.  
    4. Action/Jinri send out the invitation to remind the co-chairs about Rittwik's meeting
    5. Action/Farheen  update the time on the F2F.  Morning 8:30AM - noon Tokyo Japanese time.  This will make is easier for the U.S. to join.  
    6. Action/Farheen For the F2F use the zoom meeting bridge for people to join remotely and post on the wiki.
    7. Action/Rittwik will prepare something for the face to face meeting with TOC WG3
    8. Action /Lusheng work with Phil offline regarding setting up subcommittees under an umbrella project and do the approval through email.
    9. Action/Jack Bring a proposal to approve a list of projects.
    10. The minutes of the prior meeting were reviewed, and there were no corrections. On motion made by David Streibl and seconded by Jinri the minutes of the June 29, 2019 meeting were the approved by the TOC members. 
      1. VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
    11. The new NRT-RIC project and committers for the O-RAN SC was reviewed . On motion made by Vincent and seconded by David creating the Near Real time RIC project was approved by the TOC members. 
      1. VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.
    12. Make Thoralf the PTL for the Near Real Time RIC project. On motion made by Jack and seconded by David making Thoralf the PTL for Near Real Time RIC project was approved by the TOC members. 
      1. VOTE: Vote taken, item passed.