2021-10-25 Multi-SDO Autonomous Networks Open Discussion Workshop #12 Meeting notes

Date

25 Oct 2021

NOT Fully Curated

Apologies

Logistics:

14:00 -15:00 BST

15:00 - 16:00 CET

Bridge https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2354908699 

passcode Q05KUDVxTWpJSWlJcXVqQUlrNEsyUT09

ZOOM recording

Topic: Dave Milham's Personal Meeting Room
Unfortunately due to an omission we do not have a recording.

Chat Log: 

meeting_saved_chat.txt

Input Material

• WP01   Administration:   MSDO-WP01r1- Admin-7.docx
• WP02   Landscape Roadmap: MSDO-WP02- Landscape-Roadmap-4.docx
• WP03  AN Business Vision & requirements:   MSDO-WP03- Business Vision requirements -1.docx, Presentation MSDO proposal v1.2.pptx
• WP04  Common Operating principles:  MSDO-3_Towards Development of a Blueprint of Common Operational Principles for ANs V1.10.pdf

Incoming contributions

• Letter of Intent: Autonomous Networks Multi-SDO Initiative

• MSDO-5 Landscape and Roadmap Operational Focus 
• MSDO7  
• ANP319-WP02 intial thoughts-4- short.pdf

Meeting Agenda

1. Permission to record.
2. Introduction
3. Agenda review
4. Formal Legal meeting briefing   rescheduling
5. Progress on Work packages
   1. WP02  Autonomous Network Roadmap and Landscape: (Operations Focus) new contribution
   2. WP04  Common Operating Principles
   3. IEEE proposal on Multi Layer Control , Abstraction and control loops?
6. AOB

Call for IPR Declaration – IPR Statements for Use in Meetings

Meeting notes

• Permission to record.
  • omitted in error
• Introduction
  • Introduction to the meeting
• Reviewed agenda
  • Decidded to run formal meeting feedback after the WP02 update
  • note that Ranganai was not avilabelto cover the the WP04 items
• Progress on Work packages
  • WP02  Autonomous Network Roadmap and Landscape: (Operations Focus) new contribution
    • Dave presented the preliminary analysis for the deliverable in the contribution MSDO 7 ANP319-WP02 initial thoughts-4- short.pdf
    • What is shown is an identification pf of the Use Cases that are driving The WP02 from China Mobile - Slide#2.
    • There are a number of interrelated concepts show in Slide #2 and #3 .
      Some are focussed on implementations e.g. closed loop, and some towards operations e.g. Autonomous / automation levels.
    • Slide #7 initial analysis of documents listed on the Topics Tables.
      It has identified those that address Autonomous / AI levels and the implications on operational flows between Human users and systems.
      It is also the landscape of current documents relevant to the operational use cases and since some documents are in preparation these are part of the roadmap elements as well.
    • ETSI GR ENI 010 V1.1.1 Evaluation of categories for AI application to Networks and IG1252 Autonomous Networks Levels Guide set out the criteria for evaluation of the level a systems work at; and both include categorisation of operational flows across planning and operations.
    •  Slide #8 shows that the definition of AN Levels is a bit different  across SDO  but mostly come for defining how AN systems are implemented and the internal Closed loop (CL) task flow.s
    • Proposal examined 3GPP 28100 Intent level as an example. And plan is to look at other documents.
    • Analysis includes some preliminary thinking about ETSI ZSM 002 009-1work.
    • Slide #15 Some observations based on work  in 28.100  tables shown in
      • Focus of analysis is to answer what are the Operational flows at different Level
      • At Level 0 we have legacy operations flows based on today’s APIs
      •  At Level 5 we have intent abstraction and don’t see anything about internal structure of Autonomous / Management Domain or CL.
      • At Levels 1 -4 we see varying degrees of automation and split of functions/task  between humans and systems of:
        • Awareness
        • Analysis
        • Decision making
        • Execution
      • Seems from the wording that the API / Services linking the humans and the systems vary for each AN Level.- Each with different technology options (e.g. imperative, rules, policy, policy-inter and intent); and operational processes for pre and post execution
      • From CSP Operational Perspective this is a complex set of operation transformations steps adding cost and time
      • Can we simplify the evolution of operational flows?
    • Open discussion and feedback
    • Zoulan
      • AN Levels Dimensions... brings the 3 of the following items together.
        • 1 AN Levels & Interfaces
        • 2. Intent Interfaces - nothing with Levels
        • 3. Closed Loop Control
      • Approach to defining operational flows should be Use case driven.
        As has been done in 28.312  use case specification.
      • Proposed:
        •  Take a TMF use case...check which use case to be determined.
        • 3GPP already using this methodology.
        • which interface fit here etc? which interfaces from 3GPP are reused?
    • Dave Milham
      • Pointed out that whilst it brings these three views together that these are based on how to implement a solution than how to operate and leaves some gaps.
      • AP Dave Milham Agreed next step is to analyse the Use case flow for a example or two as has been done by 3GPP. And will bring in a proposal.
    • Toerless Eckhart:
      • Q: Asked 3GPP where they were...on Intent
      • Zoulan: answered additional work on intent coming in  28.312  (stage 2 and stage3).
      • The intent driving the Policy.
        • So that the system doing the mapping...
        • Models...
        • Capture...etc
      • Pointed out the APIs do not capture all the behavior of systems.
  • WP04 Common Operating Principles
  • IEEE proposal on Multi Layer Control , Abstraction and control loops?
    • IEE not available to proposed to carry over to the next call
• Formal Legal meeting briefing   rescheduling
  • Dave noted that the original rescheduling proposal was for the 4^th Nov (minutes initially incorrectly stated 4^th Oct which has been corrected).
    • This is on a Thursday so we should re-schedule for Monday.
  • Dave proposed that he sends out a formal liaison proposing to move this to 22^nd Nov
  • Some initial feedback received from ONAP about preference to use existing bilateral Liaison agreement.
  • Thomas Tovinger Feedback on Legal Agreements  From 3GPP
    • Reply Liaison /Ls - needed to send it to PCD meeting for confirmation and analysis. Meeting has happened. Should be with TM Forum shortly.
    • Just in time. they speedily processed and response is back from them : they decided that it is NOT possible to sign as of now since  IPR and antitrust policy of TMF and 3GPP is NOT compatible.
    • Encourage us to find alternative, Another way of working it out.
  • Thomas Tovinger SA 5
    • We can series of ad-hoc meeting with SA5 with decision power, to send an LS etc, treat and LS....we don't have to wait for ordinary SA meeting.
    • Thomas: we can comment, but we cant do new Contributions.
  • Dave Milham: 
    • Pointed out Dialog more important ...mutual influence is better than necessarily joint documents.
    • Dave has looked a the original proposal on Temp Document( sharing and joint review ) and joint meeting ( difficult in COVID situation)  But TM Forum Legal counsel opinion is uncertain about the antitrust aspects of this approach; although it probably handles IPR without changing any individual SDO bylaws or policies.
    • Asked if those involved with FMC and UIM  have any legal advice they could share and how 3GPP and TM Forum liaison worked ...(Dave wasn't involved on FMC).  Thomas agreed to recollect how FMC worked...also alternatives. FMC couldn't publish outside of the partner orgs!
    • FMC : Technically aligned but not word align...same UIM federation model. Grew from same roots in UIM model
  • ZOULAN: Suggested we decouple the technical discussions( from legal aspect of creating common material with shared IPR)  and that some discussion can happen bilaterally.
• AOB
  • None