Yes, this is accurete ... TimoJ --- Timo Jokiaho, +358 50 5002802, Mobile email powered by Nokia E61 Intellisync -----Original Message----- From: ext John Cherry Sent: 17-08-2007 20:15:10 To: ext John Cherry;Chen, Terence Cc: Jim Zemlin;Jokiaho Timo (NSN - FI/Espoo);lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Starting the 5.0 charter process On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 10:02 -0700, Chen, Terence wrote: > >When is the next set of SCOPE meetings? > = > Timo, > = > Do you have SCOPE meetings schedule? According to the SCOPE site, the upcoming meetings are... Sept 10-13, Berlin (Nokia Siemens Networks) Board meetings - Sept 10-11 Tech meetings - Sept 12-13 Oct 23-24, Mountain View (Nokia Siemens Networks) Board meetings Nov 28-30, Tokyo (NEC Corp) Annual General Meetings Is this still the plan? John > = > -Terence > = > = > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Jim Zemlin [mailto:jzemlin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > >Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:43 AM > >To: Chen, Terence > >Cc: timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx; lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >Subject: Re: Starting the 5.0 charter process > > > >When is the next set of SCOPE meetings? > > > >Jim > > > >On Aug 17, 2007, at 9:06 AM, Chen, Terence wrote: > > > >> Glenn, Timo, > >> > >> I think the flow of what you described makes sense in high level; > >> however, it will be good for both organizations to sit down to follow > >> through and work out the working model to streamline the activities > >> and > >> logistics such as gap analysis, requirements, implementation, and LSB > >> type of testing... > >> > >> The question is when and where. > >> > >> -Terence > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> [mailto:lf_carrier- > >>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > timo.jokiaho@xxxxxxx > >>> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 3:09 AM > >>> To: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> Subject: RE: Starting the 5.0 charter process > >>> > >>> > >>> Glenn et.al > >>> > >>> We at Nokia Siemens Networks have a firm opinion that these kind of > >> RFPs > >>> should come > >>> from SCOPE Alliance (note, this is Nokia Siemens Networks opinion, > >>> not > >>> SCOPE at least yet). > >>> > >>> What we also think is that collectively we should start > concentrating > >> on > >>> working towards > >>> consistent Carrier Grade API set within Carrier Grade OS domain, > like > >> CG > >>> Linux. In order > >>> to do that, the following model is proposed: > >>> > >>> * LF-CGL would be primarily become implementors group with Carrier > >> Grade > >>> focus. > >>> SCOPE Alliance develops gap / requirement document and spells out > >> the > >>> need for APIs > >>> related to the gaps / requirements. This will given to LF-CGL, > >>> which > >>> then starts developing > >>> the APIs themselves. The development process should be full > >> consensus > >>> based. When the > >>> APIs are defined, LF CGL includes the new APIs into LSB CGL module > >>> and they would > >>> then be automatically included into LSB certification process. > >>> > >>> In addition to this SCOPE would continue to profile existing API > >>> specs > >>> and then provides the > >>> profile (priorities) to LF-CGL group, which then works on those and > >>> makes sure they will be > >>> included into LSB CGL module. They would then be included into LSB > >>> certification process. > >>> > >>> Any thoughts ? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> > >>> TimoJ > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> [mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >> ext > >>> > >>>> Seiler, Glenn > >>>> Sent: 16 August, 2007 12:45 > >>>> To: lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>> Subject: Starting the 5.0 charter process > >>>> > >>>> We need to start this process that we agreed to back in June at > >>>> the LF > >>>> LinuxSummit. > >>>> > >>>> To that end I'll start by putting some concepts out for discussion > >>>> before starting a draft of the charter. > >>>> > >>>> The first and most important thing that strikes me about the new > >>>> charter we [loosely] agreed to in June is that it is a very > >> fundamental > >>> > >>>> shift from the original charter. To be more clear; the original > >> charter > >>> > >>>> was to define characteristics of a Carrier Grade system - some > >>>> existing, some not - that must be present in order for a system > >>>> to be > >>>> defined as Carrier Grade. > >>>> These requirements came directly from NEPS and Telecom platform > >>>> providers - those most knowledgeable to provide such > >>>> requirements. The > >>>> result was a blueprint that distro's could map against and NEPs > >>>> could > >>>> use as a sort of metric. > >>>> > >>>> If we move to charter to essentially specify gaps - things not in > >>>> the > >>>> current Linux kernel and associated packages - then the document, > or > >>>> spec, or whatever it becomes, cannot really be used to define > >>>> capabilities of an OS, because by definition, the requirements do > >>>> not > >>>> exist. Ok, so maybe a distro may have a few of the 'non-existing' > >> gaps, > >>> > >>>> but for the most part it becomes a document that no one can > >>>> really map > >>>> against. > >>>> > >>>> So the charter changes significantly; rather than a document that > >>>> defines the characteristics of a CG system, it now becomes a > >>>> "message > >>>> to the industry of what Telcos need and isn't available". A wish > >>>> list. > >>>> My fundamental question is "what value to the NEPs is a wish list"? > >>>> Perhaps great value. > >>>> But I am not the right person to answer that question. Now if the > >>>> community reacts - either through LF, through distros and platform > >>>> providers, or through grass-roots projects, then this document can > >>>> become of great value. But if the community does not react, it > >>>> becomes > >>>> a nice exercise. > >>>> > >>>> The concept of registration, or certification, or LSB module > >>>> essentially goes away. How do you certify or register against > things > >>>> that do not exist yet? I suspect that will make some very happy, > >>>> but I > >>>> think it is a great shame. > >>>> > >>>> So, with my preamble out of the way, and a basic question asked > >>>> of the > >>>> key consumers of this document, here are some ideas for moving > >> forward. > >>>> > >>>> 1) we should create the document similar to an RFP. The RFP should > >> come > >>> > >>>> from LF. It should be an RFP for CG requirements not met today. > This > >>>> process would give equal opportunity to everyone; SCOPE Alliance, > >>>> individuals in the community, distros and platform providers all > >>>> would > >>>> equal opportunity to submit requirements. > >>>> > >>>> 2) Just like an RFP, there should be a timeframe for responding. > >>>> > >>>> 3) There should be a "maintainer" of the requirements that resolves > >>>> conflicting requirements, overlaps and redundancies. > >>>> Without a 'maintainer' the process would quickly become chaos. > >>>> > >>>> 4) The maintainer should be a neutral party, (..LF). If not, some > >>>> democratic process should be created to determine a maintainer. > >>>> > >>>> 5) There should be a template that 'suggests' the way requirements > >>>> should be submitted. Nothing too rigid. The template should come > >>>> from > >>>> LF, with input from this list of course. > >>>> > >>>> 6) As we discussed in June, the requirements should be "What" > >>>> of requirements that do not exist today. Not the "how". > >>>> > >>>> 7) I'm not sure this process or document should be restricted to > the > >>>> kernel proper. I suspect there are valid requirements in user > >>>> space as > >>>> well. > >>>> > >>>> --------------------- > >>>> > >>>> Ok, that is all I can think of now. I'm quite sure I am missing > >>>> something and of course, this is an open process so I expect a lot > >>>> comments. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> -glenn > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Glenn Seiler, General Manager Linux Solutions, Wind River direct > >>>> +1.510.749.2122 mobile +1.831.334.4108 fax +1.510.749.2695 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Lf_carrier mailing list > >>> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Lf_carrier mailing list > >> Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier > > > >------------------------------------------------- > >Jim Zemlin > >Executive Director, The Linux Foundation > >210 Fell St. Suite 16 > >San Francisco, CA 94102 > >Cell: 415-726-2284 > >Fax: 415-707-2153 > >http://www.linux-foundation.org > > > > > = > _______________________________________________ > Lf_carrier mailing list > Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lf_carrier/attachments/200= 70817/49216ee4/attachment.htm