2021 year

The most recent review (the latest one) can be found at the bottom of this page.

The review booking and schedule is per 30min slot and has the following structure:

Month/Day/Year Schedule Review

Time slot 1) 07:00 - 07:30am PDT + BPs Title  + PTL Name + the Link to the Rel "X" Documentation

Time slot 2) 07:30 - 08:00am PDT + BPs Title  + PTL Name + the Link to the Rel "X" Documentation

Summary Table to Akraino TSC for BP (Integration Projects) Review status from August 2021

1/8/2021 schedule

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

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 "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).