Page History

Date

22 Feb 2021

...

Attendees

...

...

Attendees

...

...

...

...

Input Material

• MultiSDO_AN_Workshop3.pptx
• Multi-SDO Autonomous Networks Meeting 2 MoM 22-FEB-2021.xlsx

...

1. Permission to record /Roll call   ~4 minutes
2. Open meeting: No IPR protection                  ~1 minute
3. Review Agenda   ~5 minutes
4. Review of output from Workshop #1  ~10 minutes
5. Establish the collaboration/contribution process  (30 minutes)
   1. Reconfirmation of agreed objectives in Workshop #1
   2. List of discussion topics
   3. Agree  Schedule Dates
   4. Contribution process
   5. Have some strawman straw man contributions ahead of meeting time
6. Identify concepts and definition (Time permitting) 
   1. Autonomous Networks,  
   2. Autonomous Network Levels,  
   3. Intent driven interactions
   4. Control loops
   5. Autonomous Domain
7. Agree schedule for future meetings   ~10 minutes
8. AOB

...

1. Many attendees were new and had not attended previous workshop ~1.
2. Presented the previous workshop minutes location - 2020-09-28 Multi-SDO Autonomous Network Coordination Workshop Meeting Notes/Video - AN-SDO Collaboration - TM Forum Confluence  - and key agreement at end of Workshop #1:
   1. "Start from the consensus and alignment of basic concepts, terminologies, framework, and key perspectives including definition of Autonomous Networks, closed loop, Autonomous Networks Levels, Autonomous domains, Intent driven interaction and open discussions.
   2. Further deep dive on the development of key technical mechanisms, framework and interfaces, as well as use cases/PoCs and testing and verification mechanisms to support autonomous networks."
3. Feedback received on detailed  ETSI TC and IETF group titles. Any correction should be emailed to [email protected]
   
   

Presentations: AN SDO Workshop Contributions - AN-SDO Collaboration - TM Forum Confluence

Group Planning session facillitated by Kevin McDonnell

1. Kevin proposed a  simple worksheet to establish which SDO a simple matrix of topic/SDO to establish the full list of topics and then to  establish which SDOs and individuals were prepared to contribute to those topics. The topic list was seeded by the 5 topics agreed listed in Workshop #1.the agenda.
2. Discussion followed focused on making clear the precise objectives of the group are and some suggestions were given on how to organize this worksheet to create a more high-level landscape and then roadmap view of collaboration.
3. As such, it Notion was to establish which groups had interests in which areas. It was not possible to fully fill in complete this matrix analysis during the meeting as some clarification on objectives were needed  and  due to a large amount of questions/comments from both those that attended Workshop #1 and those that had not.the high-level objectives was needed from many participants. 
4. The matrix of topic/SDO will be further elaborated offline by participants and analyzed in future meetings. Matrix is in The proposed matrix is  in the spreadsheet above: Multi-SDO Autonomous Networks Meeting 2 MoM 22-FEB-2021.xlsx

...

A number of comments were made about the process of moving the work forward which differed from the output of the previous workshop. These are summarized below and are not attributed to individuals or SDOs.  The recording above give the chronological record. 

...

• Need to establish a common view of the objectives and benefits of such coordination.
• Query about objectives of the worksheet:
  • Confirm the topics identified from Workshop #1.
  • Who is interested in what topics? Frameworks specific meaning of definitions / terms
  • Who might be planning to contribute?
  • Alignment by sharing of work
  • Possibly jointly developed document.
  • Approach is to establish which groups have interest in which  areas.
• Noted that topics are similar and different groups may be working on similar concepts but at different levels of the network.
• General consensus to work out what to do together in concrete form

Concerns-

...

Operational/

...

organizational

• Concern if the work addresses standardization as that will take much time.
• Joint specification would require discussions on rules and procedures.
  And is the purpose of the parallel Inter SDO meeting for later in March 2021.
• Over arching Overarching document might be feasible.  Ee.g. White white paper
  • Could be definitions and or frameworks
  • Use case
  • Test and verification
• Different group will have more of or less engagement and some topics might be of higher or lower priority.
• Autonomous levels is this Network Levels - are these separate from maturity levels? Consensus was yes.
• Conceptually alignment whilst necessary might still not create aligned outputs for example APIs models split between common /non domain specific and domain specific.
• Intent APIs are one example where divergence across SDO would be unhelpful.
• Concerns about possibility of establishing a 'mega-organization for ' to create common framework
• Multiple things done in organization trying to create consistency work in collaboration using Liaison offices and liaisons
• Need to avoid creating obstacles and impeding SDO progressing their existing works
• Idea of PoC Joint PoCs looks good and was supported by multiple participantparticipants
• Concerns about setting a scope of work that is too large to be done within reasonable timeframe time frame and effort.
• Starting point should be the existing SDO material and consider motivation and issues they plan to solve. E.g. whether Autonomous Network means the same in all organizations. Should try to find the commonalities  and how complementary work.

...

• Major obstacle for CSP is to follow and analyze the activity of the SDOs organization.
• PROPOSAL: Suggestion that CSP would benefit initially from a document setting out the  landscape  landscape of AN activities across SDOs to create a common understanding, more elaborated understanding of the terminologies (some are technical e.g. Autonomous Networks Autonomous Domains;  and some are types of deliverables) and get a picture of where the industry is going i.e. form of roadmap (attracted several supporting comments).

Technical Concerns and Proposal

• Would be useful to know the where current detailed work on the list of topics where coordination could be usefulis underway for the topics listed.
• Common operational principle: Need to establish what is common across SDOs. And would need metamodels.  Reference t o to IEEE Common overarching operational principles. Contributed by members of IEEE, AFI and TM Forum.
• Metamodels strong opinions were expressed both for and against and for 'Metamodels':

• • Against : too complex and create another model to be supported and of unknown value.
  • For: Suggestion to extract common model by extraction form multiple existing models with create criteria.
    Metamodels linking SDO Concepts is essential for full automation as envisaged by AN I.e. Zero-touch, Self-healing.

• Common information models:
  • Federation / merge of information models was successful for Network models as developed between 3GPP and TM Forum and common models lead led by Cablelabs.
  • Concern about creating new over arching overarching model as that creates N+1 standards.
  • Should try to establish what was done in the past that worked well.
• PROPOSAL: Review proposal developed by IEEE at FUture Future networking conference "Overarching Blueprint of Common Operational Principles of Autonomic/Autonomous Networks," which involves Mappings for Federated Models as well
• Concern that even aligning principles guidelines across SDOs could be a challenge as implies changes to existing SDO specifications.
• Formal contributions might be best done by company contributions as easier to handle in the SDO Working Groups.
• Outcomes could be:
  • Sharing of information.
  • Sharing of definition, then figure out if there a was mutual interest to create shared understanding which could then become the Landscape/ Roadmap.

Next

...

meetings:

Proposal is to hold next Multi-SDO AN  Workshop ( technical level)  in a month
i..e 22nd March 2021 time to be agreed

And we have proposed an Inter-SDO Strattegic coordination meeting focued on  planning and business objectives  in a formal  liaison from TM Forum to all interested SDOs on
15^th March exact timing to be discussed.

Action List

•  Representatives of afilliated SDOs to complete the Topic / SDO Matrix  online.

Next Meeting details

Scheduled Date:        

Proposed to run in about 4 week at the time of 11:00-12:30 GMT/UTC
( Ed note proximity to Easter vacations needs to be checked.

We will ask attended to fill out the spreadsheet on-line.

Chat Log 

11:05:51 From Kevin McDonnell : Minutes of Workshop #1 https://projects.tmforum.org/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=146292908
11:11:47 From Nurit Sprecher : which WG in IETF? is it ANMIA?
11:11:51 From Nurit Sprecher : ANIOMA?
11:12:01 From Nurit Sprecher : ANIMA
11:13:53 From Lingli CMCC : autonomic network
11:17:30 From Nurit Sprecher : would be good to see companies but also orgs representing
11:19:21 From Kevin McDonnell : https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N7hSW9-cERX971_hxQeptA91zX50yKpMdL4fR94oClA/edit#gid=0
11:19:38 From klaus Martiny (DTAG) : rh
11:20:01 From Dave Milham : draft meting minutes whcih has as input the slides https://projects.tmforum.org/wiki/display/ASC/2021-02-22++Multi-SDO+Autonomous+Networks+Workshop+%232+Meeting+Notes
11:31:51 From Dr.Muslim Elkotob : PoCs are not run exclusively by companies as was just commented; there are coordinated PoC activities in the TC INT PoC series based on GANA Autonomics in 5G and Beyond; and each of the events of the PoC series we run involves several stakeholders in the value chain at the same time (Vendors, ISVs, CSPs, etc.)
11:36:37 From klaus Martiny (DTAG) : that is what I mean. clarification of the common ground and understanfing: e.g. close loops,ettc.
11:38:17 From Nurit Sprecher : RH
11:38:27 From Lingli CMCC : rh
11:40:48 From Emmanuel (Huawei) : rh
11:42:36 From klaus Martiny (DTAG) : agree with Nurit
11:42:46 From Emmanuel (Huawei) : +1
11:42:56 From Zou Lan (Huawei) : agree with Nurit
11:43:06 From Anatoly (Nokia) : RH
11:43:07 From Zou Lan (Huawei) : RH
11:45:39 From klaus Martiny (DTAG) : indeed, that is the reason why there were a couple initiatives tried the hamonized the various prpjects
11:47:43 From Nurit Sprecher : RH
11:51:15 From rRanganai chaparadza : Towards the Standardization of an Overarching Blueprint of Common Operational Principles of Autonomic/Autonomous Networks
11:52:05 From Laurent Ciavaglia (Nokia) to Dave Milham(Direct Message) : Hi Dave, It seems people are using different "raise hand" systems... the built-in raise hand and "RH" in the chat… maybe useful to clarify to avoid issue with queue management ;)
11:53:22 From Zou Lan (Huawei) : which tool we use for RH?
11:53:54 From Kevin McDonnell : lets use chat
11:56:58 From Jörg Niemöller : rh
11:58:13 From Abdul Majid Hussain (Telstra) : In the interest of the time, providing my feedback via this chat
- Agree with most of the speakers, we need to move forward and work towards alignment of taxonomy, architecture, principles, etc
- We need to agree with what we need to do next and create streams of work
12:02:04 From klaus Martiny (DTAG) : rh
12:02:44 From rRanganai chaparadza : Federated Models are part of Modeling and there is a misunderstanding on what is implied by Meta-Model
12:03:05 From Jörg Niemöller : Federated models is what I have in mind when asking to define responsibilities. I still see that we need to define common modelling and API principles. This is in my understanding the meta-model.
12:03:35 From rRanganai chaparadza : Fully agree with you Jorg
12:04:57 From rRanganai chaparadza : RH
12:05:08 From Emmanuel (Huawei) : +1 Dave
12:06:14 From Dr.Muslim Elkotob : Fully agree; the collective set of connections in a federated hyper-model that connects all streams or contributions forms jointly a strucuture to which Ranganai referred to as a meta-model
12:06:59 From Anatoly (Nokia) : @Ranganai - we have been through the "meta-model" discussions (quite literally). The outcome was not federated modeling approach... The FNIM is an example of umbrella model where other models "plug-in"... a meta-model did evolve into "meta-policy" and failed to "fly"
12:07:02 From Thomas Tovinger (3GPP SA5 chair, Ericsson) : RH
12:07:22 From Emmanuel (Huawei) : +1 Nurit
12:07:36 From Leon Wong (Rakuten Mobile) : RH
12:08:18 From Emmanuel (Huawei) : +1 +1 +1 Nurit
12:12:07 From Jörg Niemöller : fully agree to Rangannai
12:12:18 From Anatoly (Nokia) : RH (as an answer to Rangannai)
12:14:07 From James O Sullivan (Huawei, TMF AN) : Enable distributed ownership with shared conceptual and taxonomic models, not full info models.
12:14:32 From Jörg Niemöller : If every SDO sticks to their guidelines as they are we will get overlaps and the same things done differently.
12:15:27 From Raymond Forbes ISG ENI, Huawei UK : Rangannai is correct Frameworks are NOT APIs - Thomas is correct that common documents will take a long time
12:16:38 From Jörg Niemöller : I also believe that the challanges for realizing autonomous networks will require new approaches and and concepts and not just applying standard telco guidelines to be applied again.
12:16:59 From Diego Lopez : Some time ago, we went through a similar process in the network virtualization arena. The agreement was to build a map (or “landscape” if you want), trying to avoid overlaps and to identify and align the contact points in a P2P way. I think this fits well with the federation approach proposed before
12:17:25 From rRanganai chaparadza : Very true Ray.
12:18:45 From rRanganai chaparadza : Jorg, its is true that the traditional approaches in SDOs is no longer viable in the era of automation
12:20:37 From Lingli CMCC : with pleasure@kevin
12:22:26 From rRanganai chaparadza : What we are saying is that FEDERATED Models need to be described in a formal way not using paper text description
12:24:39 From rRanganai chaparadza : We are not contracting each other as such. Modeling is at the heart of Federated Models as well
12:24:57 From rRanganai chaparadza : we are not contradicting each other
12:26:17 From Raymond Forbes ISG ENI, Huawei UK : RH
12:26:43 From Nurit Sprecher : RH
12:26:55 From rRanganai chaparadza : There is simply a misunderstanding on interpretation of what a Meta-Model
12:27:17 From klaus Martiny (DTAG) : i Have to leave sharp at 13:30
12:28:44 From Jörg Niemöller : I also think that it is not only a matter of which information models survive. This will definitely happen. But something like intent based operation marks a shift from action/process triggering API towards API for life-cycle management of knowledge objects (intent are such objects). These are conceptually different ways of doing API and I believe we have to agree on a common one. Just one example where missing alignment and common concepts will lead to conceptual incompatibility.
12:29:23 From Ton Brand (ETSI) : same here - need to leave at 13:30 sharp. can we share this google sheet as I am not able to access it via the link.
12:29:55 From Manchang Ju(ZTE) : fully agree to Lingli
12:30:14 From rRanganai chaparadza : The problem is that there is often lack of engagements on people or SDOs deeply competent in Modeling
12:30:24 From Thomas Tovinger (3GPP SA5 chair, Ericsson) : I can't access the google sheet link either, although I have a TMF account.
12:30:48 From klaus Martiny (DTAG) : cheers
12:32:26 From rRanganai chaparadza : What we mean by Overarching Blueprint of Common Operational Principles of Autonomic/Autonomous Networks, involves Mappings fore Federated Models as well
12:32:53 From rRanganai chaparadza : Including Ontologies for Taxonomy Harmonization
12:33:39 From Anatoly (Nokia) : +1 to Nurit - creating a "meta-organization" attempt would be a real disaster

Action List

Next Meeting details

Scheduled Date:        

Link to Project Calendar:

...