Versions Compared

Old Version 163

changes.mady.by.user Tina Tsou

Saved on

compared with

New Version 164

changes.mady.by.user Ike Alisson

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

1/ 7:00 am – 7:30 am PDT Public Cloud Edge Interface (PCEI) Blueprint Family Oleg Berzin

2/7:30am – 8:00 am - 

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:

  1. 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 Enablement 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 a "Demo", "Concept", "Commercial" deployment version and/or there is/are references.
  • The above remarks is also related 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. On the Test Document, there very limited information about performed test (except to 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 si 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).


1/15/2021 schedule

1/ 7:00 am – 7:30am PDT IEC Type 5 SmartNIC

...