Discussion on the new nRT RIC project


Jinri Huang
 

Dear Jack and all,

This is Jinri using my personal email. Unfortunately the mail to the reflector from my corporate mail account is always bounced back.

On the last TOC call, we briefly touched the new project proposal for near-RT RIC (nRT RIC). With this email, I would like to cast a few opinions.

My major concern on the project proposal is as before, how to guarantee the alignment b/w the project and the WG3 in O-RAN Alliance. I understand this is a big topic and not just the efforts from the project alone. Jack and I, and the whole TOC should take the major responsibility on this. However, to me this does not mean that the project proposal could totally bypass this issue by mentioning nothing. The project itself should devise some mechanism/solution to address the concern (at least to some extent).

Nokia is also the vendor co-chair in WG3. It should be convenient for the two groups within the same company to discuss and come up with something to be reflected in the proposal.

Having said that, just do not get me wrong. As part of the community, I am eager to see the first project to be born. I am just a bit careful and want to ensure the health of the project, given the specific relationship b/w the SC and the WG under the same Alliance.

Comments are more than welcome.

Cheers,

Jinri



 


Thoralf Czichy
 

 

hi,

 

> how to guarantee the alignment b/w the project and the WG3 in O-RAN Alliance.

 

I think the aspect that drives alignment the most is that the developers and architects working on

the near-RT RIC open-source implementation do work closely with the WG3 representatives from within

the same organization. For us at Nokia that's definitely the case and information flows in both

directions; also indirectly for WG3 contributions from other organizations.

 

To make sure that this continues to be the case and also to cover situations where something was missed

we could, for example, establish a once-a-month slot in the to-be-established near-RT RIC project

meetings, which are likely to happen weekly, in which someone (chair or co-chair?) from WG3 presents

the most recent agreed-on updates and open points under discussion. The Near-RT RIC software community

is encouraged to give feedback to the WG3 during such session. In the unlikely event that there are

conflicts we could escalate to the TOC (Technical Oversight Committee).

 

Cheers,

Thoralf

 

 

 

From: main@... <main@...> On Behalf Of Jinri Huang via Lists.O-Ran-Sc.Org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 7:55 AM
To: main@...; jfm@...; Huang Jinri <huangjinri@...>; duanran@...; sunjunshuai@...; wangyingying <wangyingying@...>; sunqiyjy@...
Subject: [oran-sc] Discussion on the new nRT RIC project

 

Dear Jack and all,

 

This is Jinri using my personal email. Unfortunately the mail to the reflector from my corporate mail account is always bounced back.

 

On the last TOC call, we briefly touched the new project proposal for near-RT RIC (nRT RIC). With this email, I would like to cast a few opinions.

 

My major concern on the project proposal is as before, how to guarantee the alignment b/w the project and the WG3 in O-RAN Alliance. I understand this is a big topic and not just the efforts from the project alone. Jack and I, and the whole TOC should take the major responsibility on this. However, to me this does not mean that the project proposal could totally bypass this issue by mentioning nothing. The project itself should devise some mechanism/solution to address the concern (at least to some extent).

 

Nokia is also the vendor co-chair in WG3. It should be convenient for the two groups within the same company to discuss and come up with something to be reflected in the proposal.

 

Having said that, just do not get me wrong. As part of the community, I am eager to see the first project to be born. I am just a bit careful and want to ensure the health of the project, given the specific relationship b/w the SC and the WG under the same Alliance.

 

Comments are more than welcome.

 

Cheers,

 

Jinri

 


 


MURRAY, JOHN F (JOHN) <jfm@...>
 

Jinri

 

These are good points to discuss

The first thing I want to separate is creating the project from electing the PTL and what code is used.

It believe we should approval all A release projects tomorrow so we have a structure setup and can work to define what will be each projects targets.

This will allow JIRA items to be entered and discussed.

 

Alignment of the software in all open source projects is continuous effort. Here in O-RAN, it is a little different but not completely. In the end it is a balance between the producer and consumer. If not one uses it then it get iterated and changed or dropped. Nokia set a separate email supporting their view.

 

In this case of the RIC I feel we are in a good position, we of the WG co-chair company stepping up with significant resources and seed code work. It is about the best case to start with. I feel the risks are more manageable them the DU or CU at the current time.

 

I do not believe we should delay. We have the resource being contributed, we need to move quickly or we will lose momentum, the software will be iterated in future releases. O-RAN will hold the checks by testing and reviewing the software. We will contributors, developers, and support if we do not show we can deliver an “A” release.

 

But the biggest issue to me is that the majority of the RIC software is not critical to the O-RAN functionally specification. Yes, there is key functionality, APIs (E2), and performance issues that need to be address but the bulk of the software will be the framework. Much of the RAN functionality will be implemented in the xAPPs on the framework. This should allow different contributors to focus on key RAN functionality.

 

So I plan to purpose:

1.       Create the nearRT RIC project

2.       Create Other release A projects

3.       Vote on Nokia’s motion for PTL

4.       Discuss requirements and the EPICs

 

Project Name

Project Key

PTL

Seed Code Repos

Non-realtime RAN Intelligent Controller

RICNRT

 

 

 

RAN Intelligent Controller Applications

RICAPP

 

ric-app/admin

ric-app/reporter

 

RAN Intelligent Controller

RIC

 

com/asn1

com/golog

com/log

ric-plt/a1

ric-plt/appmgr

ric-plt/dbaas

ric-plt/dbaas/hiredis-vip

ric-plt/e2

ric-plt/e2mgr

ric-plt/lib/rmr

ric-plt/rtmgr

ric-plt/sdl

ric-plt/sdl/config

ric-plt/sdlgo

ric-plt/sdlpy

ric-plt/submgr

ric-plt/utils

ric-plt/xapp-frame

 

O-RAN Central Unit

OCU

 

(China Mobile integrated eNB contribution)

 

O-RAN Distributed Unit

ODU

 

(Intel L1-2 contribution)

(Radisys L3 contribution)

 

Operations Administration Management

OAM

 

portal/ric-dashboard

 

Simulation

SIM

 

(AT&T RAN side E2 simulator)

 

Infrastructure

INF

 

aal/lib

aal/logic

aal/mgmt

aal/virt

(Inspur infra monitoring contribution)

 

Integration and Testing

INT

 

it/dep

it/dev

it/test

 

Documentation

DOC

 

doc

 

 

 

 

From: Jinri Huang [mailto:13910490429@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:55 AM
To: main@...; MURRAY, JOHN F (JOHN) <jfm@...>; Huang Jinri <huangjinri@...>; duanran@...; sunjunshuai@...; wangyingying <wangyingying@...>; sunqiyjy@...
Subject: Discussion on the new nRT RIC project

 

Dear Jack and all,

 

This is Jinri using my personal email. Unfortunately the mail to the reflector from my corporate mail account is always bounced back.

 

On the last TOC call, we briefly touched the new project proposal for near-RT RIC (nRT RIC). With this email, I would like to cast a few opinions.

 

My major concern on the project proposal is as before, how to guarantee the alignment b/w the project and the WG3 in O-RAN Alliance. I understand this is a big topic and not just the efforts from the project alone. Jack and I, and the whole TOC should take the major responsibility on this. However, to me this does not mean that the project proposal could totally bypass this issue by mentioning nothing. The project itself should devise some mechanism/solution to address the concern (at least to some extent).

 

Nokia is also the vendor co-chair in WG3. It should be convenient for the two groups within the same company to discuss and come up with something to be reflected in the proposal.

 

Having said that, just do not get me wrong. As part of the community, I am eager to see the first project to be born. I am just a bit careful and want to ensure the health of the project, given the specific relationship b/w the SC and the WG under the same Alliance.

 

Comments are more than welcome.

 

Cheers,

 

Jinri

 


 


Jinri Huang
 

+ Claudio & Paul (Nokia), WG3 co-chairs,

I tend to agree with such mechanism.

Need more comments from others, especially WG3 representatives/co-chairs.

In essence, we shall guarantee the involvement from both sides. The earlier the involvement, the better it is.

Jinri



At 2019-06-05 00:22:46, "Thoralf Czichy" <thoralf.czichy@...> wrote:

 

hi,

 

> how to guarantee the alignment b/w the project and the WG3 in O-RAN Alliance.

 

I think the aspect that drives alignment the most is that the developers and architects working on

the near-RT RIC open-source implementation do work closely with the WG3 representatives from within

the same organization. For us at Nokia that's definitely the case and information flows in both

directions; also indirectly for WG3 contributions from other organizations.

 

To make sure that this continues to be the case and also to cover situations where something was missed

we could, for example, establish a once-a-month slot in the to-be-established near-RT RIC project

meetings, which are likely to happen weekly, in which someone (chair or co-chair?) from WG3 presents

the most recent agreed-on updates and open points under discussion. The Near-RT RIC software community

is encouraged to give feedback to the WG3 during such session. In the unlikely event that there are

conflicts we could escalate to the TOC (Technical Oversight Committee).

 

Cheers,

Thoralf

 

 

 

From: main@... <main@...> On Behalf Of Jinri Huang via Lists.O-Ran-Sc.Org
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 7:55 AM
To: main@...; jfm@...; Huang Jinri <huangjinri@...>; duanran@...; sunjunshuai@...; wangyingying <wangyingying@...>; sunqiyjy@...
Subject: [oran-sc] Discussion on the new nRT RIC project

 

Dear Jack and all,

 

This is Jinri using my personal email. Unfortunately the mail to the reflector from my corporate mail account is always bounced back.

 

On the last TOC call, we briefly touched the new project proposal for near-RT RIC (nRT RIC). With this email, I would like to cast a few opinions.

 

My major concern on the project proposal is as before, how to guarantee the alignment b/w the project and the WG3 in O-RAN Alliance. I understand this is a big topic and not just the efforts from the project alone. Jack and I, and the whole TOC should take the major responsibility on this. However, to me this does not mean that the project proposal could totally bypass this issue by mentioning nothing. The project itself should devise some mechanism/solution to address the concern (at least to some extent).

 

Nokia is also the vendor co-chair in WG3. It should be convenient for the two groups within the same company to discuss and come up with something to be reflected in the proposal.

 

Having said that, just do not get me wrong. As part of the community, I am eager to see the first project to be born. I am just a bit careful and want to ensure the health of the project, given the specific relationship b/w the SC and the WG under the same Alliance.

 

Comments are more than welcome.

 

Cheers,

 

Jinri

 


 




 


Jinri Huang
 


Hi Jack,

I tend to agree with most of your points. The only one that I am not sure is the last point you raised.

I do hope that the majority of the work on nRT RIC in Release A is only lightly related with the current WG3 specification, i.e. more about framework. It would be perfect if it is the case. Yet to be careful, we need to get alignment & confirmation with WG3. I do hope it is the case. I fully understand the importance of speed for SW development in an open source community.

Let us discuss more in the call in a few hours.

BR,

Jinri




At 2019-06-05 08:43:28, "MURRAY, JOHN F (JOHN)" <jfm@...> wrote:

Jinri

 

These are good points to discuss

The first thing I want to separate is creating the project from electing the PTL and what code is used.

It believe we should approval all A release projects tomorrow so we have a structure setup and can work to define what will be each projects targets.

This will allow JIRA items to be entered and discussed.

 

Alignment of the software in all open source projects is continuous effort. Here in O-RAN, it is a little different but not completely. In the end it is a balance between the producer and consumer. If not one uses it then it get iterated and changed or dropped. Nokia set a separate email supporting their view.

 

In this case of the RIC I feel we are in a good position, we of the WG co-chair company stepping up with significant resources and seed code work. It is about the best case to start with. I feel the risks are more manageable them the DU or CU at the current time.

 

I do not believe we should delay. We have the resource being contributed, we need to move quickly or we will lose momentum, the software will be iterated in future releases. O-RAN will hold the checks by testing and reviewing the software. We will contributors, developers, and support if we do not show we can deliver an “A” release.

 

But the biggest issue to me is that the majority of the RIC software is not critical to the O-RAN functionally specification. Yes, there is key functionality, APIs (E2), and performance issues that need to be address but the bulk of the software will be the framework. Much of the RAN functionality will be implemented in the xAPPs on the framework. This should allow different contributors to focus on key RAN functionality.

 

So I plan to purpose:

1.       Create the nearRT RIC project

2.       Create Other release A projects

3.       Vote on Nokia’s motion for PTL

4.       Discuss requirements and the EPICs

 

Project Name

Project Key

PTL

Seed Code Repos

Non-realtime RAN Intelligent Controller

RICNRT

 

 

 

RAN Intelligent Controller Applications

RICAPP

 

ric-app/admin

ric-app/reporter

 

RAN Intelligent Controller

RIC

 

com/asn1

com/golog

com/log

ric-plt/a1

ric-plt/appmgr

ric-plt/dbaas

ric-plt/dbaas/hiredis-vip

ric-plt/e2

ric-plt/e2mgr

ric-plt/lib/rmr

ric-plt/rtmgr

ric-plt/sdl

ric-plt/sdl/config

ric-plt/sdlgo

ric-plt/sdlpy

ric-plt/submgr

ric-plt/utils

ric-plt/xapp-frame

 

O-RAN Central Unit

OCU

 

(China Mobile integrated eNB contribution)

 

O-RAN Distributed Unit

ODU

 

(Intel L1-2 contribution)

(Radisys L3 contribution)

 

Operations Administration Management

OAM

 

portal/ric-dashboard

 

Simulation

SIM

 

(AT&T RAN side E2 simulator)

 

Infrastructure

INF

 

aal/lib

aal/logic

aal/mgmt

aal/virt

(Inspur infra monitoring contribution)

 

Integration and Testing

INT

 

it/dep

it/dev

it/test

 

Documentation

DOC

 

doc

 

 

 

 

From: Jinri Huang [mailto:13910490429@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:55 AM
To: main@...; MURRAY, JOHN F (JOHN) <jfm@...>; Huang Jinri <huangjinri@...>; duanran@...; sunjunshuai@...; wangyingying <wangyingying@...>; sunqiyjy@...
Subject: Discussion on the new nRT RIC project

 

Dear Jack and all,

 

This is Jinri using my personal email. Unfortunately the mail to the reflector from my corporate mail account is always bounced back.

 

On the last TOC call, we briefly touched the new project proposal for near-RT RIC (nRT RIC). With this email, I would like to cast a few opinions.

 

My major concern on the project proposal is as before, how to guarantee the alignment b/w the project and the WG3 in O-RAN Alliance. I understand this is a big topic and not just the efforts from the project alone. Jack and I, and the whole TOC should take the major responsibility on this. However, to me this does not mean that the project proposal could totally bypass this issue by mentioning nothing. The project itself should devise some mechanism/solution to address the concern (at least to some extent).

 

Nokia is also the vendor co-chair in WG3. It should be convenient for the two groups within the same company to discuss and come up with something to be reflected in the proposal.

 

Having said that, just do not get me wrong. As part of the community, I am eager to see the first project to be born. I am just a bit careful and want to ensure the health of the project, given the specific relationship b/w the SC and the WG under the same Alliance.

 

Comments are more than welcome.

 

Cheers,

 

Jinri

 


 




 


Jun Song
 

Hi all,

 

Before the public publication of the E2 principles and its E2AP specification, the alignment of RIC requirements between O-RAN WG3 and O-RAN OSC could be tricky. Because of the IPR issue. Most of the contributions submitted by the O-RAN member companies are O-RAN IPR protected. I don't know if it is even possible to paraphrase or quote the idea before its publication.

 

Cheers,

Jun

--------- Original Message ---------

Sender : Jinri Huang <13910490429@...>

Date : 2019-06-05 18:36 (GMT+9)

Title : Re: [oran-sc] Discussion on the new nRT RIC project

 


Hi Jack,

I tend to agree with most of your points. The only one that I am not sure is the last point you raised.

I do hope that the majority of the work on nRT RIC in Release A is only lightly related with the current WG3 specification, i.e. more about framework. It would be perfect if it is the case. Yet to be careful, we need to get alignment & confirmation with WG3. I do hope it is the case. I fully understand the importance of speed for SW development in an open source community.

Let us discuss more in the call in a few hours.

BR,

Jinri




At 2019-06-05 08:43:28, "MURRAY, JOHN F (JOHN)" <jfm@...> wrote:

Jinri

 

These are good points to discuss

The first thing I want to separate is creating the project from electing the PTL and what code is used.

It believe we should approval all A release projects tomorrow so we have a structure setup and can work to define what will be each projects targets.

This will allow JIRA items to be entered and discussed.

 

Alignment of the software in all open source projects is continuous effort. Here in O-RAN, it is a little different but not completely. In the end it is a balance between the producer and consumer. If not one uses it then it get iterated and changed or dropped. Nokia set a separate email supporting their view.

 

In this case of the RIC I feel we are in a good position, we of the WG co-chair company stepping up with significant resources and seed code work. It is about the best case to start with. I feel the risks are more manageable them the DU or CU at the current time.

 

I do not believe we should delay. We have the resource being contributed, we need to move quickly or we will lose momentum, the software will be iterated in future releases. O-RAN will hold the checks by testing and reviewing the software. We will contributors, developers, and support if we do not show we can deliver an “A” release.

 

But the biggest issue to me is that the majority of the RIC software is not critical to the O-RAN functionally specification. Yes, there is key functionality, APIs (E2), and performance issues that need to be address but the bulk of the software will be the framework. Much of the RAN functionality will be implemented in the xAPPs on the framework. This should allow different contributors to focus on key RAN functionality.

 

So I plan to purpose:

1.       Create the nearRT RIC project

2.       Create Other release A projects

3.       Vote on Nokia’s motion for PTL

4.       Discuss requirements and the EPICs

 

Project Name

Project Key

PTL

Seed Code Repos

Non-realtime RAN Intelligent Controller

RICNRT

 

 

 

RAN Intelligent Controller Applications

RICAPP

 

ric-app/admin

ric-app/reporter

 

RAN Intelligent Controller

RIC

 

com/asn1

com/golog

com/log

ric-plt/a1

ric-plt/appmgr

ric-plt/dbaas

ric-plt/dbaas/hiredis-vip

ric-plt/e2

ric-plt/e2mgr

ric-plt/lib/rmr

ric-plt/rtmgr

ric-plt/sdl

ric-plt/sdl/config

ric-plt/sdlgo

ric-plt/sdlpy

ric-plt/submgr

ric-plt/utils

ric-plt/xapp-frame

 

O-RAN Central Unit

OCU

 

(China Mobile integrated eNB contribution)

 

O-RAN Distributed Unit

ODU

 

(Intel L1-2 contribution)

(Radisys L3 contribution)

 

Operations Administration Management

OAM

 

portal/ric-dashboard

 

Simulation

SIM

 

(AT&T RAN side E2 simulator)

 

Infrastructure

INF

 

aal/lib

aal/logic

aal/mgmt

aal/virt

(Inspur infra monitoring contribution)

 

Integration and Testing

INT

 

it/dep

it/dev

it/test

 

Documentation

DOC

 

doc

 

 

 

 

From: Jinri Huang [mailto:13910490429@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 12:55 AM
To: main@...; MURRAY, JOHN F (JOHN) <jfm@...>; Huang Jinri <huangjinri@...>; duanran@...; sunjunshuai@...; wangyingying <wangyingying@...>; sunqiyjy@...
Subject: Discussion on the new nRT RIC project

 

Dear Jack and all,

 

This is Jinri using my personal email. Unfortunately the mail to the reflector from my corporate mail account is always bounced back.

 

On the last TOC call, we briefly touched the new project proposal for near-RT RIC (nRT RIC). With this email, I would like to cast a few opinions.

 

My major concern on the project proposal is as before, how to guarantee the alignment b/w the project and the WG3 in O-RAN Alliance. I understand this is a big topic and not just the efforts from the project alone. Jack and I, and the whole TOC should take the major responsibility on this. However, to me this does not mean that the project proposal could totally bypass this issue by mentioning nothing. The project itself should devise some mechanism/solution to address the concern (at least to some extent).

 

Nokia is also the vendor co-chair in WG3. It should be convenient for the two groups within the same company to discuss and come up with something to be reflected in the proposal.

 

Having said that, just do not get me wrong. As part of the community, I am eager to see the first project to be born. I am just a bit careful and want to ensure the health of the project, given the specific relationship b/w the SC and the WG under the same Alliance.

 

Comments are more than welcome.

 

Cheers,

 

Jinri

 


 




 

For the hand that rocks the cradle Is the hand that rules the world. William Wallace