 Hello Lucina and Victor. Good morning. Okay. I think that we can start. So feel free to add items into the agenda. In case you want to discuss something or at least put your name in the attendance list. Seems like it's something that was brought from the last meeting. Just checking in coming events, probably many people are attending the MWC in Barcelona. So, just want to mention that regarding the LFN developer and testing forum, most of the recordings and slides are there, so you want to take a look. Feel free to check the videos and everything. Probably the next. Coming events are some of the telecom TV events, I think so. Oh, no, this is from, okay, this is a different event. Yeah, this is a telecom TV. Okay. But the most importantly is the chipcon and the cloud thingy. Any particular announcement that you have about the cloud native. Oh, the fit will be announced in a couple of weeks. And there was an additional sponsorship opportunity, which may have closed, but I'll check and see if there was an extension. In addition to the regular sponsorships, there was a new live stream option. Which if anyone is unable to travel to Amsterdam this April, there was a live stream sponsorship option to add that remote attending options that without the sponsorship, it'll be in person only. Okay, thank you. So we have a lot of submissions, which is great. And yes, you're going to announce like the final final session soon. Any other event, but it is, it's not this year and you consider it interesting to attend or like mention. Okay, if you have something or some, some event that you, you, you consider it free to add in this place. Yeah, we really appreciate anything regarding that. Probably Taylor, do you have these particular item? Or if you're saying something you're muted. I'm asking if I have additional items. Oh, yeah, this one. No events. No other events. Okay. No, no, other than that. Are you asking about the birds of a feather session. Yes. I thought that it is here I didn't, I didn't see it before. It is, it is something that is a proposal or like it is, it's confirmed more. It would be, no, it would be informal. So nothing official on the schedule. I think that there's enough interest in doing in person meeting though, that we could put something together and then maybe tweet about it and put it up wherever linked in message some places saying that we're going to have that and try to find a location ahead of time. And if, if we can, you know, have a designated area great and otherwise, and you know, we'll just find something when we're on site. But I figure we can have something like what we do on a weekly basis, but open to, you know, whatever people want to put forward. If we want to use as a working session to dig into areas that we've been talking about that's fine too. Okay, yeah, that's for me. Hopefully. Yeah, people can give us some feedback and see what happened. Okay, let me open the Mr review in the PRs we have. Oh, often not close. So, that's a good news. We have plenty of issues open. So I have created this one. Yeah, I think that this is something that we discovered during the creation of a draft right. Taylor. So we consider like, be nice to have glossary term. Regarding this privilege. So that can, I can can take it as an owner for these. So, it just matter of doing the proposal like, it's very simple, like, well, the simple, like the content of the PR, but definitely requires a lot of analysis and investigation. But yeah, having data, we can use it as a reference in our draft right but that to me already right. Yeah, we do have a good chunk of content already as well. That folks have worked on like in another folks so we can pull from that. It might be good to as a related to this. Let's take a look at the glossary and see what are some important things that may be missing when we think about conversations that are happening or confusion when we're talking about some how networking is discussed for Kubernetes usage in general versus how telecom networking is a lot of and those type of terms or and maybe build a list of here's here's three or three to five things that we could contribute. Start drafting those and get input from folks. Because also we have our own glossary right which in some cases also make sense right and certain things sure to find here. Absolutely. Okay. I will try to work on this. But if you want to help me on that. More than welcome. So the speed is just kind of that PR and work with it. That the committee members there and try to find it. More broadly. Another sustainable way. Okay. This is something that luck. Take it ownership. Don't think that we have received any response from him. Yeah. Really. Because he's just moving certain files in a different directories. So he's trying to for progress on that. Yeah, there's some maintenance. And I guess technical data, whatever we could documentation that help whatever you call it, but we could do a working session where we try to go through a few of these update all of the links across the board and move that stuff. Yeah, and it's great that we are using the first issue. I think we can advertise. We should not help. Yeah, this is same regarding glossary. So my, probably my mayor concern is about TNF. Because it's a term that we haven't clearly defined the same as that. I have seen that for like sometimes referring to the container may be function. So there's been native. So and even a scale native never function. We have to surely find all the details of this. Just to give you an example. Let me fix some some very terms like you see, for example, health engineering does the way that they are defined things. So first of all is without plain English. What is what is this concept trying to avoid any cross references or like and I think it's addressing this particular term. We also have to really define the problem statement in particular and the last section of it is how this is held. So not only defining the concept is also like trying to provide a value that this particular technologies offering particular and they have different status. I don't remember exactly which are there, but yeah, you can do a proposal. You can keep that feedback appreciated with this like waiting for others to try to find certain things and I don't know which triggers or what triggers the change of the status. But eventually when the status is in complete status the the term is going to be published or available in the website. So what we have to keep in mind is particular these three particular sections in the term. So for every single term we have to think about it. There are a few exceptions like for example maybe abstraction is one of them. It doesn't require like those sections, but it is because it's more like a property and behaves like a different like doesn't make sense to split it in those three things. But I don't think that it's okay. They think that for us it's going to be at these three sections. Obviously we need like to refer on other things like for example cloud native apps. We can cross reference between the glossary terms. Yeah, it seems like a cloud native network function should directly refer to that one. And that's the definition we have been using as far as what is a cloud native network function. It is a cloud native application that's providing networking functionality at the simplest term. But I think it would be good to put it in there. I mean, especially since we're saying this is CMCF glossary and they have a CNF certification. I think that wouldn't be a good one to put in their main glossary and get it published. Yeah, the other thing that I'm not sure if we have these particular two sessions, six sections, sorry. But yeah, it's just a matter of thinking about it, right? Yeah. It would be good to be able to communicate it in those three parts. What is it, the problems that address and how it helps. And I think that's useful for conversations with anyone that we're wanting to be involved in the community so they understand as well. So in this particular issue we have three, I don't know if it could be considered one, but at least we have to turn to propose. Maybe it should be better to split it in two different issues. So feel free to raise your hand and take one of these and work with the glossary community to make sure that that turns it is there. I want to make sure that we have enough time and while people are here to go through the draft best practice. Can we move down to that one? Is that the very end, 67? Is this one right? Yeah. I don't think we've provided a link to that, but we could do that as well. It's not... Do you have a link of the draft? Do you want to navigate to discuss a particular section or just in general mention? Well, has anyone on the call reviewed it? Do they have any feedback? Are there any comments in the actual doc, Victor, that you say like suggest edits or anything else? Well, yeah, we spent a couple hours on this and I guess it's in a good shape to do that. I haven't seen any any other feedback from others. So probably it's time to move it to the next phase and within the PR. I think on that, it has a lot of good stuff. It's covered most of the things like old time to be finished in the summary. So maybe I think it's a good time to move forward. I'm getting a pull request right now. Okay. It's going to be hard to deal with all the painting. Can I do it offline because I would like to cover all the markdown things? Yeah. You mean like cat spaces and all of that can happen? Exactly. And also run all the CIE tracks that we have, like LinkedIn and spell check and all these things. Yeah, I mean we could put it in as a draft but do you have something that I'll take it and start formatting adding the formatting automatically for whatever language they support? I'm not sure if I have one that will automatically do that and markdown it. Maybe you're talking like a tool like markdown online to what? Yeah, or you know some editors can automatically hit a button that will automatically do that and markdown. But let me, I can try to see. I mean we could do it offline if we want, but I want to make sure that we get this out. Yeah, and also if you haven't checked this document and you want to give us the latest try, just review it and let us know if we are keeping something or like it's not clear. So it's going to be easier to make changes here instead of in the PR. In the PR as well it's like once it is in the PR hopefully we'll see a lot of reviews on that. Can you add the link to this Google doc and to the GitHub issue? Okay. Yeah, I can fine. Yeah, I can, I can, I can create a PR today. No problem. Okay. Any other issue or PR that you want, well PR doesn't have PRs but anything that you want to discuss or to get deeper conversation? I have some questions about CNS. Sorry, I barely Yeah, I have some questions about CNS after watching some of your presentation. Not related to the best practice. Question? Yeah, a different question. If I can ask at the end of one of the other other issues I was going to discuss. Yeah, can you add a just add something into the Google docs as an agenda item? Okay. Just write in whatever topic you want to discuss with me. Yeah, let me place the this link, this link is with the agenda. The way Oliver, I saw that some of your colleagues put some comments on less privilege. No, the other one. One, yeah, this one process protect. Oh, yeah, okay, good. Because I know I had asked I haven't seen them myself, but I had asked them to comment on there. So, who's that? Okay. Yeah, I just basically put the CNS landscape at the end. Did you put a tompi here? Yeah, and I put CNS landscape. Oh, yeah. Here. Is this what you put it? You're talking about the CNS landscape. Is it for it's just further back? That was February 13th. Yeah. Yeah, just move that up. Are you going to move it? No, I didn't move it. I didn't move it. Someone else. Okay, okay. I can move. It is a great point. Like, I don't think that we have like a CNS landscape. Do you know if we have something like that or? What are, what are you're wanting as far as what do you mean by CNS landscape? Yeah. Yeah, I think that's a good point. I have quite a few of your videos. Very interesting and older videos. Me too. Then, for example, I have a question about. I said, I, the freedom was not with service match. I was having a question about that. And then the service match group. Recommended actually join this group. About that. And then the process and current status between the, the, the. Maltis. DAA and M. I think just different network options. And so, I think you'll also discuss in your previous. Those. So, yeah, just try and understand my. For example, there's just so many activities going on. So those. Maltis being an absolute and I would say this match. That's a different network options. That was tested before, but I believe by this group. And then also newer. In addition to the issue is creating a new. Network layer for option. That's the particular. Into the network layer as well. And then on the telecom side, the network foundation. It's not active. I said, it's not as active as before, but it's having actually was creating a lot of standard. Including a lot of projects, including likes strategy. Or all those different kinds of options. And then also we can mix the network foundation and also things like. So there's a lot of things going on sometimes is very conceiving. So it's one of them. Any kind of landscape to show what's going on in the world. And you're talking about. In the, in the developer. Side or in the structure side. Or just in general, for example. One of the initiatives that in the infrastructure side, we define. Most of those technologies. Anarchy. Anarchy is. Providing. Reference. Architecture. Documents and. In some cases implementation for those. In general, basically. Yeah. So, so just like, you know, CSF has a landscape. I wonder if you're like telecom specific landscape to show. What's going on in the. Anything related to what this group covers basically. So just a high level. What's happening with cloud native. And telecom. At a. Across in the world. Not just it. In one project or one. Yes. Organization, but just everywhere. Yeah. I don't know of anything like that. I mean, there's a lot of different people that are putting stuff together and I've seen slides that kind of reference different ones. We've. Had. Like the. CNCF. Certificate. CNS. I don't know of anything like that. I mean. There's a lot of different people that are putting stuff together. I don't know if you can see enough certification team. Have material around that, but I don't. It's usually related to a topic. Like, okay, you're, you mentioned multi. So, okay, we're talking about. Multi interface or multi connectivity. So then it's more specific like that versus. High level, but. That could be. That could be a topic for the, either the birds of the feather or something to show. Here's all the different things or. I know it would be the, for the cube con CNF working group birds of feather, or it could be, you know, just a general thing to put out. Victor, you know, we've, we talked about maybe having some other. White papers or documents in the working group. That would be, you know, the best practices like the. Highlighting best practices from. Other projects and groups. And looking at what they have as. Part of stuff that. Would be relevant, but, you know, having, having. The material with an analysis would be good. And maybe something around this. I think we could look at any ways. I don't think there's anything out there that I know of. That's specifically giving like a landscape. Saying here is what. The ONF is doing and. Oh, we're in alliance. When you say, oh, ran. You usually think of just one main project, but there's a. Sub pieces and what are they, you know, what are they doing? And how does it overlap? That might be a useful thing. We would want to have, what is the purpose? So if there's like a. A general idea and then showing overlap is one thing. If it's a more focused. Then we'd want to need that. I just understanding the, like the trend. So, for example, the, the telecom industry was pretty open stack focused for quite a while. But recent years. The trend seems to be to Kubernetes. Container. And so all those different, regardless of which foundation. Kubernetes seems to be the trend. So, so what is the common. Like, among all this different. Foundations and projects. Is there any common theme? Like, what is the. What is the network. Technology choices that's available. That I'll be great to understand the landscape. If you look at the market. Like, where is, where is the telecom market going. This year and. The next. You know, two to three years and out that. If you look at the analysis that are happening on that. Then you see. Cloudification is one of the words. So everybody move into the cloud. And then. You know, Kubernetes would be. A set of technologies and a, I would say methodologies or the practices on using the technologies. When people say cloudification, it's, it's, and you look into what the other words that are used around that. So, the software and. Changing how you. Manage the software do deployments and that sort of thing. To be. Created from the start to take advantage of running on. Cloud like infrastructure. And the other thing that you'll see is the interoperability. In the past, you would see, we want these applications or software to run on. Any different cloud provider. Or private and public cloud. That's been going for a while. And I think that goes. Back into. You know, it's not just Kubernetes. So you have. Different things there. The other that you're seeing the more and more is interoperability between. The applications. So instead of in it. You can see this in different domains, but it's been. Staying pretty strong for a long time. And the telecom vertical. Where. Applications would sometimes expect to be in their own. Private, essentially like a mini cloud. We have access to it. We may be using these. Common. APIs and other things, but we expect to have full access to the machine underneath. So not really treated. Commodity and being able to work with others. And I think you have more of the push now to. No, we want them to. To work better together and. Not expect to own or be isolated or. Be one specific set of software that. Be more compatible with. Multiple options. So the flexibility. Is being requested along with the interoperability. And a lot of that ends up leaning. I think why you're seeing Kubernetes that. The software and the. I would say, like the way that the practices on using the technology. They're designed from the ground up. To. Work together as components that you can exchange with other options. So they're designed that way. From the ground up. And if you look at like all the different CNCF projects, including say DNS, which. A core part of Kubernetes. You can plug in. You can plug in different DNS providers, you know. The whole storage infrastructure. And when you look at stuff like the networking, so. Maltice being one of those. The CNI. We also have. Different things that are being thought of. More recently. With SIG multi-network. Where they're trying to make it. The multiple interfaces and connections being native objects. And then as long as. You're designing your technology to work with those objects. Then you have different options. And I would say. You know, the Kubernetes and the CNCF projects that are. Focusing on being. Native to the cloud. They're being designed with that stuff in mind. And that's the driver behind a lot of what you're seeing, even in other areas like. FIO is a Linux foundation project. For automating. Deployments and the management of that. Initial onboarding. And, and. Making those sort of things native as well. I think, Victor, you had some comments. Yeah, yeah. I mean, in general, I like the idea like having a. Landscape. But there are two things that came to my mind. When I was thinking about that particular topic. The first one is. Define the criteria, like. We have to be sure what it's going to be the criteria to consider. Technology. Part of that landscape. So, I mean, for example, a CNF can use. For example, I don't know, Maria BV. And, and. It is not that Maria BV is. A CNF technology per se is more like, okay, it's one of the components that. You can ask and use it, but. We have to be careful like. Define what, what could be the criteria to define certain technology as part of the landscape. And the, the other thing is. Also about the message that you want to deliver. The same applies for all the working groups. Even for the closer, I remember having similar discussion. So. We can. We can specify. As a working group, we can say, well, we have, we require. Multi-network. We have to specify the technologies. Because. Maybe we can. We can. We can add it in certain. I mean, given that we have a. Interesting ecosystem. You know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, we can. There's an ecosystem. It's going to be very. Hard to. No. For most certain technologies. For example, in. Multi. Multi-network. Area. We have more tools. With a genius, we have. NSM as a technology. list all the technologies to try to avoid to recommend something in particular. Yeah, so the one is bigger tech fair to understand like what's going on overall in the industry as well as I guess list all the projects without recommending any. That's one area and the second area is to understand what each product does will be great too. For example, E-Steel is going deeper right is going to layer four, whereas Silium is creating their own service mesh. So when it comes to having solutions, how to define like if I want to create a private 5G network, like what is what is required? Is there any like generic like components needed? Just based on the website network layer, not specific product. Yeah, things like that. And of course, you know, individual discussion might go into the actual product that definitely, you know, that's the tricky part, I guess, how to talk about solution without talking about a project and product even that is tricky there. Yeah, but at least have that at least of options, right? I mean, it's great to list all this option and it's your responsibility to choose whatever that that's to your needs. Yeah, yeah, I think it's a pretty big, I think it'd be a pretty big ask to have detailed descriptions and even like a good high level other than what you could pull for all of the options because there's so many. Unless you're going to get other people involved, ideally, you know, we get people that are part of the ONF and on different projects and other things to come in and contribute to that when we're talking about a landscape that also is communicating with each of those where it's the value. And then of course, you have well, then where the overlaps and now someone has to do and then analysis on that. And then as you know, Victor saying at some point, it has to be up to whoever's making that final decision, even if it's someone helping the, you know, the purchaser whoever's going to use it, they're going to have to make that decision. I would I'd be happy to see something like that even work on it, but ideally we have a group of people that are contributing. We did have something that maybe would be complementary to this. It was more specific to Sancia projects, but it makes me think of it. We had at I think it was a one summit many years ago. We put together essentially many conference where we had a lot of different projects speak to use cases, telecom use cases, and how those projects could be used to solve different problems. So it gave it context. It would be really, I think, nice and useful if we had different representatives from all these different projects and stuff come together and something and have years, you know, they were short presentations like 20 minutes, I think 20, 30 minutes shorter, I should say, and something like that, being able to speak to specific use cases and how, you know, give people an idea. But it's a big undertaking even within one large foundation or where you have a lot of projects to get them to talk and be another level to get different organizations. I'm interested, but I do think that to make something like a landscape that gives a good view of projects from lots of different organizations and groups that have different perspectives on how to solve things, experiences, you need to have direct input and ideally collaboration with folks from different groups to ensure that you're giving a good overview of what they're doing. So if you have like contacts or anyone that would be interested in collaboration, that's something that we're trying to always do in this group. Yeah, if there is, if it's possible, yeah, definitely, I mean, we can always reach out to the other community to see if we can fill in here. We do have overlap with some. Victor has spent a good deal of time over in like the FIO. Mentioned the etiquette earlier, we have experience and collaboration work there and representation of directions happening. The Project Silva, that's a Linux Foundation Europe project. They have, there's, I guess, people that are involved in that which were either and some in the past and directly involved with some of these other groups or where there are colleagues or someone else. So there is overlap, but if we're going to actually have a landscape, it can be an analysis from one point of view, but if you're wanting to have more details on the project, then it would be good to have less, maybe less bias if you get direct input from each of the projects. Yeah, just to maybe a smaller scope to start with. For example, like Network Service Match versus Notice and DMM. This is options. I just, for me, it's kind of the rest. I don't have a very clear idea what's the use cases and the strong point in it, etc. So yeah, and how they get applied to what telecom, whether it's core or edge. Yeah, I think it might be good to even just reading the Linux Foundation, you're reading CNCF, what is the available telecom-related solutions in the network area. We have six minutes left, so I would like to give some time to others. Any other intrusions about the issues or any suggestions or any new, well, here or none, I guess we have covered all the things in this meeting, so we can continue offline. All right, thanks everyone for participating and we will see you next week. Thanks everyone. Thank you, Victor.