Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT Period No. 1, from 01/10/2010 to 31/12/2011 Feedback on the recommendations.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT Period No. 1, from 01/10/2010 to 31/12/2011 Feedback on the recommendations."— Presentation transcript:

1 Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT Period No. 1, from 01/10/2010 to 31/12/2011 Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 1

2 1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review 1.c Recommendations concerning future work 2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN 2.a Progress towards project objectives 2.b Progress in individual work packages 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 2

3 1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review 1.c Recommendations concerning future work 2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN 2.a Progress towards project objectives 2.b Progress in individual work packages 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 3

4 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review The Periodic Activity Report (D1.2) should be improved to:  Present the baseline technology stemming from the Manticore project and other sources, and a concise overview on the state of the development of all components;  Add new KPIs on liveliness/attractiveness of the open source software platform to the existing list of KPIs;  Describe the system that will be used during the rest of the project to improve monitoring of the costs, given the underspending in the first period. The Periodic Activity Report (D1.2) has been improved and re-submitted:  New sections have been added to outline the developed modules, their dependencies with external libraries and spin/offs. Also a state of the development section referring to the roadmap in D4.1 has been added.  4 new KPIs to assess progress on the open source community have been created. Their definitions have been added to D1.2.  The actual and planned direct personnel costs will be compared quarterly per partner and per WP. The result of this monitoring will be available to all partners in the project wiki, and included in QPRs as new section on Monitoring of Cost Spending. Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 4

5 Mantychore Software Business Plan (D2.5) should be improved to become more specific regarding the Mantychore project, as the expected outcome of the project will differ from the results of Manticore II. This software business plan is being updated, but there are two factors that made not feasible to deliver it within the three months period after the review:  This deliverable had no effort within the Mantychore DoW, since it was a direct outcome of another initiative (sponsored by the local government). Therefore, since external resources with business skills were needed and they were not fully available within the three months period requested, this new deliverable could not be finished within the three months period requested.  Mantychore has finished the requirements update and more information is available. Moreover, and due to the impact after the TNC 2012 presentation, we have defined a more detailed roadmap that will improve the business analysis.  We plan to finish this new deliverable, which does not has mm allocation within the project plan, by beginning of November 2012. (we will add a new milestone in the DoW) 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 5

6 User Manual (D3.1) should be improved to better separate the documentation for the three user groups expected to use the outcome of the project: end-users, infrastructure providers and service providers.  A new landing page has been created in the user documentation.  This landing page explains and differentiates each different role that might be a potential OpenNaaS user.  For each role, links to the relevant parts of the documentation are provided. This way, each kind of user can go through the manual in a personalized way, although all documentation remains available on a comprehensive manner.  This page can be found on the online documentation, although a PDF version has been attached to the D3.1 deliverable. 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 6

7 Requirements Analysis Report (D4.1) should be updated to contain all specific requirements knowable collected during the period under review.  D4.1 has been updated to include references to all requirements of the project.  Such requirements are:  Added to each use case  Grouped by external, emergent and roadmap.  The same classification has been performed on-line by tagging. 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 7

8 1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review 1.c Recommendations concerning future work 2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN 2.a Progress towards project objectives 2.b Progress in individual work packages 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 8

9 1. Periodic Quarterly Reports should provide a concise overview of the state of the development of all components, the results of the KPI evaluation, statistics for web/wiki/svn access, and monitoring of the cost and resource spending, (starting with the next QPR).  A new section on visit statistics to public information hubs will be included in QPRs starting with QPR-07. This will comprise at least web pages, SVN, Wiki, Facebook, and video material on YouTube.  All QPRs starting at QPR-06 will include a new section on Monitoring of Cost Spending where the actual and planned direct personnel costs per partner and per WP will be compared. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 9

10 2. The requirements analysis should be more concrete regarding specific requirements coming from the different use cases and the new functionality developed to meet those requirements. It would be beneficial to separate internal and external requests in the visualisation of issue progression. On the other hand, given the potentially high number of requirements, a prioritisation of those requirements would be desirable, so the project can show that the prioritised ones are completed by end of the project. (starting now) The updated Requirements Analysis Report (D4.1) includes:  Every use case section includes the list of requirements.  A new section with the external requirements has been added.  A new section with the emerging requirements has been added.  A new section with the requirements to be implemented has been added, organized and prioritized according to the roadmap.  Stories have been prioritized in JIRA suite. The list of stories is now ordered by priority, with higher priority ones at the top. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 10

11 3. In order to enlarge the potential size of the user community and maximize the impact of the project results, the OpenNaaS framework should be interoperable with as many network devices as possible. Up to now a single routing platform (JunOS) has been addressed. The Mantychore framework should be able to support at least another routing platform, a second major vendor (i.e. other than Juniper) being desirable. (send an implementation plan within 3 months, to be evaluated at the next review) With this regards, two complementary possibilities are being studied, Cisco and Linux support.  Meetings have been held with Cisco personal, who are interested in OpenNaaS and possible integration approaches.  Different approaches have been discussed. The heterogeneity of Cisco platforms being the major blocker.  For the same reason, they are interested in the HAL approach of OpenNaaS.  This is an on-going discussion. Outcomes will be shared with the OpenNaaS community via the usual channels (webpage and mailing list).  The Linux platform is being studied as part of the roadmap.  It has been identified as a major need for the Cloud use case, which will be attained immediately after the vCPE use case. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 11

12 4. The project should clarify its position in relation to other relevant on-going open-source activities in networking for cloud computing, such as OpenFlow, Open vSwitch and Quantum (to be delivered for evaluation at the next review)  The project has a monitoring presence on relevant communities (SDN, OpenStack/Quantum, OpenNebula).  Integration with Quantum has been identified as a key requirement for the Cloud use case and thus prioritized accordingly.  Open vSwitch will be studied as an implementation approach for the Linux platform support.  It is unlikely that OpenFlow becomes relevant to the Mantychore use case. Nonetheless, other projects are interested in implementing OpenFlow support in OpenNaaS, out of the Mantychore scope. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 12

13 5. The KPIs as defined and measured by WP4 should be better integrated with the Scrum software development process of the project. For example, using selected KPIs as acceptance criteria for software developed for related stories. Moreover, as the openness of the development process is considered one of the strengths of the project, a KPI for liveliness/attractiveness of the open source software repository should be added. KPIs should also be used to collect feedback of the internal user, which would allow having KPIs for evaluation already now. (starting now)  Two sets of new KPIs have been defined.  3 new KPIs for the development process.  4 new KPIs for the open source community activity.  Definition of the KPIs can be found in D1.2 revision.  These new KPI on development process will be quarterly evaluated and the results included in QPR starting in QPR-07. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 13

14 6. In general, the project should better present the roles in the use cases, as currently the infrastructure provider and service provider roles are collapsed, (send an implementation plan within 3 months)  Section 4 of D4.1 has been modified to include a brief explanation of the roles classification.  Added role classification for all use cases at D4.1. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 14

15 7. The user manual in the wiki should be updated to cover the latest release of the software available for download. The documentation should be made consistent with respect to Manticore II and Mantychore developments: components that will not work with the current version of the software (e.g. GUI) should be removed. Moreover, the current structure of the wiki documentation does not separate the information for the different user groups of Mantychore, which makes it difficult to retrieve the information relevant for a specific group. It is recommended to have separate documents for the different user groups. (Starting now)  The GUI has been deleted from the documentation, since it doesn’t work with the current software version.  The documentation content has been updated to the latest software version.  A new landing page has been created in the user documentation (http://confluence.i2cat.net/display/OPENNAAS/OpenNaaS+Documentation), including a separation of users depending on their roles and the more relevant sections for him/her according to it.http://confluence.i2cat.net/display/OPENNAAS/OpenNaaS+Documentation  Documentation’s information has been reordered to improve the retrieve of information according to the profile of the user. New menu sections needed to be created. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 15

16 8. It is recommended to delegate the end-user training to the provider as the end-users get access to the Mantychore services through their providers only. NRENs should be considered as the Mantychore users, also with respect to exploitation. (send an implementation plan within 3 months) With regards to the training, it has been internally agreed to have two levels of training in each one of the NREN’s training sessions. The first training given to the NREN’s will be based on how the service is built, how the sw is deployed and configured, and how extra services/capabilities can be developed within the OpenNaaS Framework. The project development team will be in charge of this training. The second training session given by the technical leader will train the NREN’s on the service usage, due to the fact the NREN’s will be in charge to perform support and training to the end users. The training the end-users will received from the NREN’s will be based on the tool/service usage, and will allow the end-users community to automatically requests NaaS services through the Mantychore/OpenNaaS users/service interface. The NREN’s are seen as Mantychore users from the very beginning of the project, since they are in charge of deploying the outcomes of Mantychore over their network infrastructures. However, they are not considered end-users, since the virtual research communities are the end-users. In that sense, and since the NREN’s are those in charge of adopting OpenNaaS and deploying Mantychore services over their infrastructure, they are also considered as a key sponsor within the exploitation plan being defined by Telefonica. This role of the NRENs is considered within D5.1 (Report on the feasibility of MANTYCHORE services in a commercial environment), since NREN’s will play the same role as commercial telecom operators but with a different community of users/customers. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 16

17 9. There are several European research and infrastructure initiatives (BonFIRE, OPTIMIS, EGI...) working on cloud federation, where the project could promote its work given their need to offer networking across cloud sites. (send an implementation plan within 3 months)  Added a section to D2.1 explaining state of the liaison with NOVI. Meeting minutes attached. 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 17

18 The reviewers also approved the proposed 3 month extension (at no extra cost), support the continuation of the GSN collaboration (if no major obstacles are identified in the evaluation to be made within 2 months after the review), and the modifications in WP3 (more details in Section 2.a). All changes will have to be formalised as part of an amendment to be exchanged in due time.  A project DoW amendment is being prepared to include the approved project extension.  All the involved milestones, deliverables, and task durations have been updated in the Gantt charts and definitions of the amended DoW 1.c Recommendations concerning future work Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 18

19 1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review 1.c Recommendations concerning future work 2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN 2.a Progress towards project objectives 2.b Progress in individual work packages 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 19

20 The following changes in the DoW have been proposed by the consortium and approved by the reviewers:  The duration of the project to be extended by 3 months. The reason for this change is mainly due to delays caused by the late availability of the software to be deployed.  A final decision on the continuation of collaboration with GSN should be made within 2 months from the date of the project review.  Termination of WP3 has been extended to month 26 (was 21) to accommodate the delays of software deployment. Correspondingly, milestones MS12 and MS13 have been shifted to months 24 and 26.  Due to the 3 months extension some of the deadlines have been extended. This is because the software development has impact in different tasks and WP’s.  The amended DoW has all the changes in track mode, so they can all be checked. Basically we have enlarged the duration of the WP’s ending at the end of the project, and those deliverables and milestones that required software developments.  Moreover, the Gantt of the amended DoW has been modified accordingly by extending the project duration by 3 months.  A final decision according to GSN within WP7 has already been communicated and agreed with the PO (within the two months period after the review). The decision agreed was on moving from an integration to a pure collaboration. No middleware will be integrated between both projects. However, a compliant API with the GSN services will be developed within OpenNaaS. It will allow the partners from the former GSN project to request services to Mantychore. These services will allow the request of Green energy constrains when requesting a connectivity service. We attach a MoU being signed between the partners 2.a Progress towards project objectives Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 20

21 1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review 1.c Recommendations concerning future work 2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN 2.a Progress towards project objectives 2.b Progress in individual work packages 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 21

22 WP2 - Dissemination, Exploitation, Standardisation and Liaisons a)Due to the overall delay of the project only a few accepted publications could be achieved in the first period. References to pre-print versions of submitted accepted papers (or links where the final versions can be downloaded) should be added to the publications section of the website. Cooperation opportunities with standards bodies and liaison with other open-source projects and organisations have been identified and have been partly already set up. b)The work package has also provided the Mantychore software business plan, which is a translation of the business model study funded by the Catalan government for the Manticore II project. However, since the software developed in Manticore II and the expected outcome of Mantychore have many differences, e.g. the OpenNaaS development, the work package should update the software business plan.  a) References to published papers is available on the project wiki.  http://confluence.i2cat.net/display/MANTECH/T2.1+Dissemination http://confluence.i2cat.net/display/MANTECH/T2.1+Dissemination  b) The main difference between Manticore II and Mantychore is not on the NaaS service they provide/offer, but on the framework underneath supporting it. Both projects provide NaaS, however, Manthychore is improving much more this service, since it has a more detailed set of requirement, a more robust implementation, and uses a more advanced sw framework for its implementation that, through OpenNaaS, provides much more capabilities than those provided by the Manticore’s II framework (called IaaS Framework). Therefore, although the business approach for the NaaS is the same, the impact expected through Mantychore is much wider due to the fact that it is fully open source based, and it covers different specific use cases where NaaS can be applied. 2.b Progress in individual work packages Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 22

23 WP4 - Software Refinement The work package experienced a significant delay and started only about two months ago to deliver monthly releases of the Mantychore software. It is not evident which software the WP is developing: are all developments contained in OpenNaaS, are there additional components? The first public release is expected for the demonstration at the Terena conference in May 2012. Security has only partially implemented due to missing decision on the web-service end-point but should have a strong focus in the second period when the developments are expected to be deployed in the NRENs’ infrastructures. Demonstration of the development given during the review showed basic functionality to setup an IP Network including three sites in different geographic locations. However, no GUI was available and the interaction with the Mantychore system was command-line based.  A “system architecture” section has been added to D4.1 in every use case description. It makes an overview of the different hardware/software involved in each scenario and which software is being developed by WP4.  A prioritized grouping of requirements by roadmap has been added to D4.1. There can be seen that, after remoting and BoD (implemented as of June 2012), Front end and security are the more prioritized functionality blocks. 2.b Progress in individual work packages Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 23

24 WP6 - Infrastructure Resources Marketplace WP6 results are in line with the plan. So far, the execution of WP6 seems to be relatively independent from other WPs. In order to implement the Marketplace concept in the Mantychore framework an effective interaction with WP4 should be put in place. With respect to the aim of a commercial take up of the project’s results, the reviewers recommend adding reputation information regarding the infrastructure providers and accounting of resource usage.  For a real-world implementation of marketplace, it is nontrivial to have a pricing model that can capture the interactions between resource suppliers, consumers, and brokers in a network virtualization environment.  We have a mapping algorithm in the proposed marketplace which considered cost and revenue when making a mapping decision. This is a simple pricing model where revenue and cost are linear functions of requested and allocated resources.  Therefore, it can be easily adjusted by operators to incorporate a customized pricing model, for example, a reputation factor could be added based on the probability of the resource failure of an infrastructure provider.  An accounting module that enables marketplace to keep track of network resource usage against user identities is also considered in this work plan. 2.b Progress in individual work packages Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 24

25 WP7 - Zero-Carbon Emissions Virtual Infrastructures The GSN collaboration ended without GSN delivering the final version of the software with the Mantychore extensions. The GSN project ended as planned but probably will be continued funded by Ericsson/Prompt (not CANARIE as before). However, there is no official letter yet, no information about their workplan with respect to delivering of the missing software or continuation of the software development. The project sees two alternatives: stop the official collaboration or continue (where the conditions are not yet clear). In case of stopping the collaboration the functionality of the missing GSN software would have to be implemented in OpenNaaS by the project. A final decision on the continuation of the GSN collaboration must be made within two months. As already commented. The new status of the collaboration with the GSN project and consortium has been already discussed and agreed with the PO. The changes has also been reflected in the DoW and accepted by the PO. As an overview of the discussion, we agreed on : 1.Defining a new collaboration frameworks rather than sw integration 2.Developing a Green Information Model compliant with the GSN services 3.Defining and implementing a new API to request energy services associated to connectivity services. In the meantime, a new MoU is being agreed and signed by both parties (it is attached with the delivered documentation). It is expected that it will be signed after the summer period. 2.b Progress in individual work packages Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 25

26 1. OVERALL ASSESSMENT 1.b Recommendations concerning the period under review 1.c Recommendations concerning future work 2. OBJECTIVES and WORKPLAN 2.a Progress towards project objectives 2.b Progress in individual work packages 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 26

27 D2.3 - Report on related research, exploitation and dissemination activities and Planning update The deliverable is accepted, with the remark that the IRTF VNRG should be removed from the list of relevant standardization bodies, as the group is no longer active. The procedure for deciding on publication opportunities seems over-ambitious given the small number of publications realised in the first period and the limited amount of time remaining until the end of the project to submit papers to conferences and journals.  As some work has been actually done in the past with VNRG, the notes “Inactive as of Feb 8, 2012” has been included in the table of section 6.3.1, and “The VNRG concluded its work on Feb 8, 2012 and is no longer active” in section 6.3.1.1.2 of D2.3.  It is expected that more publications are released as the project comes to the end and more results are available. 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 27

28 D2.5 - Mantychore Software Business Plan This deliverable needs to be improved to become more specific regarding the Mantychore project, which outcomes will differ from the results of Manticore II.  Already explained in a previous point 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 28

29 D3.1 - User Manual The deliverable should better separate the documentation for the three user groups expected to use the outcome of the project: end-users, infrastructure providers and service providers. The User Manual should include one example for each type of user presenting a complete step by step interaction to setup the respective infrastructure, e.g. set-up an IP network by the end-user/community, set-up of an IP network Service for a customer, configuring the routers to provide the service. Probably following the step-by-step description on the interaction with Mantychore in the use case description of the Requirements Analysis Report D4.1. The license under which the Mantychore software is made available needs to be updated from BSD to LGPL v3 and ASFv2.  “OpenNaaS Roles” page has been created in the user manual and in the wiki (http://confluence.i2cat.net/display/OPENNAAS/OpenNaaS+Roles). There, each user type is described together with a sample work-flow. Additionally, per user type relevant pointers to documentation are provided in this section.http://confluence.i2cat.net/display/OPENNAAS/OpenNaaS+Roles  “Licensing” section, has been created in “Getting Started” page, to detail OpenNaaS licenses. 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 29

30 D4.1 - Requirements Analysis Report In general the reviewers would have expected further refinements in the description of the use cases and requirements, and more details about the new functionalities developed in the context of the project. (Executive summary of the Technical Review Report) The requirements analysis is too high level and should be more concrete regarding specific requirements with respect to the implementation. The project follows an agile methodology for software development and presented the wiki pages with the information of the different Sprints. The work package uses the wiki as source of most present requirements. However, D4.1 is part of the contract and should contain all specific requirements knowable at the time of writing. For this reason, an update of D4.1 is suggested, including the set of requirements collected during the period under review (01/10/2010 to 31/12/2011).  Several major additions performed at D4.1  See slide 10 for details.  Extensive tagging and updating of the online ticketing system (Jira) performed. 2.c Milestones and Deliverables Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT 30


Download ppt "Feedback on the recommendations and comments of the TECHNICAL REVIEW REPORT Period No. 1, from 01/10/2010 to 31/12/2011 Feedback on the recommendations."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google