Open Stack

If you think that there is enough overlap I am up for your suggestion of
keeping this within the existing group, I'll encourage all the operators
that were part of the original discussion to join and we can see where it
goes from there.

Thanks,
Andrew

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Andrew Mitry" <amitry at gmail.com>
> > To: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon at redhat.com>
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I spoke with Carol today and wanted to detail what the original thought
> > around the telco working group was.  At the Atlanta summit we saw a
> > proliferation of vendors trying to address the telco/service provider
> space
> > and much of the value add they were claiming to offer was around making
> > OpenStack operate at "carrier grade" scale with key functionality such as
> > IPv6.  When I discussed this with my peers at DT, Orange, TWC and AT&T we
> > agreed that would rather work towards maturing OpenStack by providing
> > feedback and develop support directly in the community.
> >
> > There are many use cases that are unique to telco/service providers that
> > don't always get represented in the community as much as we thought they
> > should.  Some examples maybe IPv6, support for apps with high connections
> > per second (DNS, Voice), high bandwidth apps (CDN, Video).  We were
> hoping
> > to flesh these use cases out in the working group and coordinate how we
> > could bring the appropriate developer support and operator feedback to
> move
> > things along.
> >
> > We did see this working group as primarily operator rather than vendor
> > driven, but vendors of course would be welcome.
> >
> > I hope that helps provide some context.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Andrew
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> What I am still looking for is some explanation of how this new group
> would differ from the existing one, and as importantly if the answer is not
> significantly what the barriers were to operator participation in the
> existing group? The issues you outline above actually overlap with the
> goals the existing effort more so than Carol's original outline.
>
> The BoF meetings where the existing group was formed in Atlanta were well
> attended by operators, equipment providers, and vendors (and this is
> reflected on the membership page) though it would admittedly have been
> great to see more participation particularly from operators throughout the
> cycle.
>
> If the only issue is who facilitates the group I am (very) open to someone
> else taking that role, but it is important that whoever does facilitate
> understands how to productively engage the development community.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I spoke with Carol on the phone earlier to try and clarify the
> situation
> > > but wanted to ensure my thoughts are recorded on the list as well. By
> way
> > > of background I currently facilitate the existing NFV sub team with the
> > > help of a couple of others (volunteers welcome!) which consists of
> people
> > > from service providers, network equipment providers, and OpenStack
> vendors
> > > interested in this space:
> > >
> > >     https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NFV
> > >
> > > It's thus far been primarily focussed on identifying use
> > > cases/requirements for NFV, turning these into actionable OpenStack
> > > blueprints, and finally implementing these. This effort started in
> Atlanta,
> > > made some progress in Juno, and is now hoping to regroup in Paris to
> drive
> > > further improvements in Kilo.
> > >
> > > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > > Subject:      [User-committee] Telcom Working Group
> > > > Date:         Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:28:48 +0000
> > > > From:         Barrett, Carol L <carol.l.barrett at intel.com>
> > > > To:   user-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > > > <user-committee at lists.openstack.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi All – I’m glad to see the interest in forming a Telco Work group.
> I’d
> > > > like to propose a charter and scope as a starting point for
> discussion:
> > > >
> > > > Charter (if one is already in development pls let me know):
> > > >
> > > >   * Foster discussion amongst Telco users of OpenStack to share BKMs,
> > > >     resolve issues, etc.
> > > >   * Gather information on add’l features, functions, capabilities,
> > > >     services needed to increase OpenStack deployments by Telco users
> and
> > > >     engage OpenStack community developers to discuss/implement
> > > >   * Understand business, market and ecosystem barriers to OpenStack
> > > >     deployments and work with the community to create action plans to
> > > >     address them.
> > >
> > > As I may have indicated above I see (1) and (2) as largely being the
> > > combination of the efforts of the existing group and ETSI NFV (see
> > >
> https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/c/c7/NFV%2814%29000154r2_NFV_LS_to_OpenStack.pdf
> > > for the latest copy of the OpenStack gap analysis provided by ETSI
> NFV).
> > > How other initiatives like OPNFV might fit into this is unknown but it
> > > seems like (3) is the item raised that is currently not directly
> addressed
> > > in the context of OpenStack at least by the Foundation, the Board, or
> > > community driven initiatives like the existing working group.
> > >
> > > It's not immediately clear whether addressing this requires a
> completely
> > > new working group, and the inherent confusion from having two groups
> > > working in the same space in the same community or some way to address
> > > within the auspices of existing frameworks with some loose but defined
> > > coupling to the requirement identification and development activities
> > > occurring in the community.
> > >
> > > > Scope:
> > > >
> > > >   * Include the current NFV Work Group into this team bringing
> community
> > > >     developers
> > >
> > > It's important to note that it can't be assumed that developers from
> the
> > > existing community will necessarily follow, particularly if the effort
> is
> > > seen to be too marketing/business centric and a distraction from
> actually
> > > implementing the required functionality. Building a developer community
> > > around this space has been non-trivial precisely because of the gap
> between
> > > the marketing hype around NFV and the current realities of
> implementation.
> > > I understand the desire to make the marketing story more specific to
> > > OpenStack, but simply wanted to highlight that if there is one thing
> NFV
> > > can't be accused of it's not having enough marketing!
> > >
> > > Certainly when I raised the topic in the weekly meeting on Wednesday
> there
> > > was some scepticism about any attempt to combine efforts here
> distracting
> > > from laying out design and implementation priorities for Kilo which is
> > > front and centre for the existing group. The reason I had raised it
> however
> > > remains valid, per some conversation on the community list it appears
> to be
> > > more difficult at this venue to informally obtain space for BoF style
> > > activities then it has been in the past.
> > >
> > > In Atlanta we used one of the development pods but due to the number of
> > > interested parties this proved quite difficult to manage, it was also
> hard
> > > to identify exactly where we would be and what time until we were on
> the
> > > ground at the event. We got plenty of feedback that there was not
> enough
> > > notice for everyone to attend.
> > >
> > > For this reason if there is consensus that there really does need to
> be a
> > > separate effort to address the marketing/business side of the coin I
> would
> > > still be interested in the idea of co-locating in the space scheduled
> for
> > > this working group on the Wednesday afternoon and effectively
> splitting the
> > > room. This would allow all of those interested in this space to attend
> a
> > > single venue, which we can get out in advance, and self select which
> area
> > > they are interested in assisting with.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > >   * Create a Marketing/Business team in the work group to work on
> > > >     messaging framework, customer whitepapers, reference
> architectures,
> > > >     etc. This group could also interact with OPNFV, ETSI NFV and
> other
> > > >     groups where there’s common interests.
> > > >   * Create an Ecosystem team in the work group to develop the
> > > >     Marketplace and create reference materials to support OpenStack
> > > >     deployments
> > > >
> > > > Is there interest in meeting in Paris to kick-off this work group?
> > > > Regards.
> > > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > User-committee mailing list
> > > User-committee at lists.openstack.org
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user-committee
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Steve Gordon, RHCE
> Sr. Technical Product Manager,
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/attachments/20141025/b0d75243/attachment-0001.html>