4. Release 4 Documentation Review Ike Alisson
1/ 7:00 am – 7:15 am The AI Edge: School/Education Video Security Monitoring, Hechun Zhang
2/ 7:15 am – 7:30 am
3/ 7:30 am- 7:45 am
4/ 7:45 am – 8:00 am
Meeting notes:
Prepared documentatio is very thorough with detailed information onArchitecture, APIs, Security, Testing (including) fall back.The Blueprint team, Hencun and Lya yu, were very well prepared.
During the review, there had been made minor remarks related to:
- Use of outdated Akraino Logo in the documentation to be removed or updated with the latest one.
- The Blueprint APIs are compliant with the OpenAPI Initiative Rel 3.0 and it was recommended to state it exlicitly in the documentation.
- The presented UCs are commercial and it was recommended to explicitly state that in the Documentation.
- The Blueprint Architecture follows the IEC standard specifications and it was recommended to provide reference to the respective IEC Specification.
The Blueprint AI Edge: School/Eductation Video Security Monitoring presented documentation fulfills the Akraino Documentation Sub-committee requirements. Therein, the Sub-committee recommends to the Akraino Process committee to accept the Blueprint submitted Documentation to the Akraino Sub-committee on Friday, November 20th, 2020.
12/04 schedule
Regular session:
1/ 7:00 am – 7:15 am PDT- The AI Edge: Federated ML application at edge zifan wu
2/7:15 am – 7:30 am - Radio Edge Cloud Documentation Paul Carver
3/ 7:30 am- 7:45 am- Predictive Maintenance (with a Thermal Imaging Camera, vibration sensors, etc.)
4/ 7:45 am – 8:00 am - Release 4 Documentation - Enterprise Applications on Lightweight 5G Telco Edge (EALTEdge)
Meeting Notes:
On Friday, 12/04, there had been a substantial failure in planing BPs review. There could be made review only of the BP on Lightweight 5G Telco Edge (EALTEdge). For ther other 3 (three) BPs, the following had been indicated briefly during the session:
- To review the Radio Edge Cloud Documentation and get back to Paul Carver via mail as a result to Paul Carver's input that there had been not changes/updates.
- To get back to AI Edge with information about the possibility to re-schedule preferably for Monday, Nov., 7th, and get back in written either today Friday or on the weekend.
- To go through the documentaiton on Predictive Maintenance and get back to Vladimir Suvorov via mail.
- The following remarks had been provided during the Documentation review of the BP on 5G Telco Edge (EALTEdge):
- to update the Akraino logo with the latest one without the term "Edge Stack" to avoid infringement rights violation
- to refer explicitly to the BPs through which 5G connectivity is provided and the BP Enterprise Application works as currently there is an indication on the respective BP Family. It is also recommended to provide a reference to an internal Road Map development when it is tentativel plannes (in the Road Map, e.g. Q2 2021 or Q3, 2021) to deliver the intergation so that recipeients know that there is a preliminary plan for the BPs connectivity to 5G as indicated in the BP and threin E2E functionality compliance.
- to verify with the Akraino API subcommittee about the BPs reference to ETSI MEC MEP internal references to be denoted/treated as APIs
- the above remark on the APIs and possible mismatch between "ETSI MEC MEP internal inerfaces (3 groups on defined as Mx (external), Mp (internal) and Mm (on Management) is related to explicit indication on any APis that are used whether being compliant to Open API initiative 3.0 (on Open APis.org).
Since the respective documentation review of 1 (one) BP took a whole hour and it was inidcated that previously, there had been provided time slots only for 2 BPs Documentaiton Review during a Documentation Sub.committee review, the previous procedure to ´have 2 (two) BPs documentation review per TSC session is reinforced.
12/11 schedule
1/ 7:00 am – 7:15 am PDT- Intergrated Cloud Native Kuralamudhan Ramakrishnan
2/7:15 am – 7:30 am - Network Cloud with Tungsten Fabric Sukhdev Kapur
3/ 7:30 am- 7:45 am- IEC Type 4 AR/VR Bart Dong
4/ 7:45 am – 8:00 am - Connected Vehicle Blueprint(Aka CVB) Tao Wang
Meeting Notes:
There were conducted 2 reviews, namely BP IEC Type 4 AR/VR and BP Connected Vehicles (Aka CVB). Both BPs are in co-operation. CVB PTL, Tao Wang elaborated on the issue/status with the BPs APIs and that it had already been reviewed/discussed with the Akraino TSC API Sub-committee and agreed on it. No major issues in the documentation. There had been conveyed a remark on elaborating the status with the UC(s) so that the reader is aware where the BPs are used.
It is recommended to the Akraino Process committee and Akraino TSC to further proceed with the respective two (2) BPs submitted documentation for Akraino Rel. 4.
12/18 schedule
1/ 7:00 am – 7:30 am PDT
1/8/2021 schedule
1/ 7:00 am – 7:30 am PDT Public Cloud Edge Interface (PCEI) Blueprint Family Oleg Berzin
Meeting notes:
The following remarks shall be treated as "recommendations" pursuing enhancements/improvements and in no way treated as "mandatory" to follow and/or implement.
As the Zoom session could not be started on time and it took about 20 min to re-schedule the Zoom meeting, it was decided per mail to convey the remarks of Documentation review per mail. The following is recommended:
- On the Architecture document:
- Related to UPF shunting at the MNO (CSPs) to check the already implemented in 3GPP System Architecture related Local Traffic Routing and Service Steering the functionalities related to multiple N6 UDP sessions and selection and re-selection of UPFs by the AF.
- If possible, to elaborate why it is selected to refer to UPF deployed in the DC and not the other 3 alternative UPF deployments
- With regard to MNO/CSP's Network (5G NSA/LTE and/or 5G SBA Network Architecture Configuration) selected functions invoked in the MEC host through partial and/or full intergration of MNO/CSPs Network CCF with ETSI MEC Host Service Registry
- On the management part, to elaborate on the MEC Host support for Virtualized Infrastructure (and defined on MEC Host support for 3rd Party to provide its own Application and enable its Mangement from its own Management environment without and integration with the MEC Orchestrator.
- If the aim/purpose of PCEI is to provide an "Enabler Layer" to briefly elaborate on the MNOs provided Capabilities through SEES/FMSS (in SCEF/NEF) to 3rd party ICPs/ISPs.
- In order to provide a better understanding to the reader on the maturity/evolvement level of the PCEI Solution, to elaborate whether PCEI current Availability Configuration and or the Rel 4 proposed implementation is a "Demo", "Concept", "Commercial" deployment version and/or there is/are references.
- The above remarks are also made with regard to the Test Document part related to APIs (test) indicated as "work in progress".
- Related to Latency in the defined 3GPP UCs ( as eMBB, URLLC, mIoT, V2X as with inidcated standard values for Slicing) is defined and published. It might be useful to add it to provide credibility that PCEI is aware of the required Latency requirements and therein able to contribute to be achieved. The IIoT (industry 4.0) within URLLC (for MCC/MCS - Mission Critical Communication/Mission Critical Services) in terms of Motion Control Discrete Automtion (for Robotics and Packaging) as well as Process Automation - Motion Control (for fluids, Gases, Electricity) is also defined/specified (even the manufacturing areas that shall be covered in terms of 30mx30mx10m and 100mx100mx30m. There is also support for 3GPP and non 3GPP access (3IWG and N3IWG) with ATSSS in order to comply with the QoS requirements for Service "Availability" and Service "Reliability" in MNOs Network.
2. On the attached Data sheet, to check on page 2, whether it should be "PCEI in Akraino Rel 4" (as the indicated term is probably a typing mistake, if not to elaborate what the indicated term means)?
3. In the Test Document, there is very limited information about performed tests (except for the Bluval) and even in the part on the tests related to APIs there is not provided any information except the inidication that this is a work in progress. It is recommended to provide a reference to either a Time Plan and/or Road Map indicating when the Testing is scheduled for (e.g. Q1 or Q2, 2021).
On your comment and inquiry on my remark about "Maturity of the Solution", I am sorry if I had been ambigous and/or misleading with my remark.
I meant about the status of Deployment Availability in terms of
1. "Concept" or
2. "Demo" or
3. "Commercial Deployment".
I suggest that with regard to the variety of preferences in terms of having a "Concept" that can be further built-upon (please read "Customized") or a "Demo", that provides a working SW/Functionality (that is "stable") or a Commercial Deployment that can be taken as it is (with integration to BSS/peripheral internal Platforms) to be deployed fast in order to be shown as a reference on the Market.
Such denomination (anyone of the listed 3 above) on the status of the "Solution Deployment Availability", depending on the party the Solution is discussed with, can provide opportunities.
Again, I would like to convey from my side that it is a remark-suggestion, rather than a requrement.
On the "Demo" elaboration, I suggest to people to elaborate about it in the "Architecture" documents as it is read by the Technical people, that provide recommendations to the Commercial people.
On the UPF deployment, please note that UPF might be deployed at the DC, Aggregation Point, BTS and/or 5G CN (Core Network) site.
There are certain conditions for that.
In your PCEI case, you chose DC. If you get some questions on that from people who are aware and work with that (that aso know the conditions, differences, requirements), depending on your answer, recipients of your answer, may measure your insights into various aspects that this issue concerns/relates to.
Just FYI.
The digram below may provide you with an insight about the use of the terms CSPs and Telco (difference) with regard to the presented by 3GPP High-level model of roles.
The below chart assigns a particular meaning in the Case of (5G NSA/SBA) Slicing (SST/SSI) deployment (NSaaS).
P.S. According to GSA, there are till now about 330 Applications to deploy 5G Private Network (and the allocated frequency is still witihn the Band 42). D.S.