Jane Shen, Jiafeng Zhu, Jeff Bower, Tim Epkes, Dan Druta, Tina Tsou, Su Gu, Doug Eng, Neal Oliver
Meeting Notes - Zhu, Brower
Jane - we will have biweekly meetings with ETSI MEC to collaborate
Jeff - should we change name to “platform and infrastructure” instead of only platform ? the concern is that infrastructure is a key buzzword, people might be looking for it
Su Gu - section 5.1, change heading from “where should the interface be” to something functional; i.e. what enablers can do
Jeff - after making name change suggested by Su Gu, can we insert paragraph that mentions debate over last year about where to draw the line; i.e. reflect Jane’s original heading
Doug - we should add a precise definition of MEC and/or edge
Jeff - we need a glossary / Jane - maybe look at LF edge glossary for edge terms
Doug / Dan - be specific about physical components in our edge definition
Dan - exclude IoT other obvious non-platform / non-infrastructure
Jane - we are more focused on mobile edge access, not fixed access
Doug - do we limit to 5G access or more broad than that ? Jane - limit to 5G edge
Dan - 5G gives aggregated RAN and other benefits but doesn’t have to be that way. Our architecture allows geographical dispersal, which implicitly ties us to 5G
Tim - maybe we should clarify near edge, far edge, “far far” edge
Jane - UPF is common element in most MEC definitions
Neal - should we rename “Models” to “Roles”, try to stay away from business terms. Cited example of GSMA OPG (Operator Platform Group)
Dan - many combinations of model / role diagrams are possible (functional, ownership, topological)
Dan - add comments saying models are not mutually exclusive
Jane - expects vendors and companies want to be included but they don’t have APIs yet