2024-02-08 API backlog minutes

Attendees

Airtel	Ramit Charla
AT&T	Pierre Close
CableLabs	Randy Levensalor
Charter Communications	Chris Aubut, Justin Pace
Ericsson	Jan Friman
KDDI	Toshi Wakayama
KPN	Huub Appleboom
Nokia	Tanja De Groot
Telefónica	Jose Ordonez-Lucena, Jorge García Hospital, Laura Lacarra
Vodafone	Eric Murray
IPfication	Alex
Shabodi	Brian Smith

Agenda Proposal

Antitrust Policy
Approval of minutes of last conf. call
Recent Updates & Recap
Review of Action Points
Discussion
- OGW Drop 3 APIs: 336, 375, 376
- Other APIs: 351, 372, 378
- Governance: 367
Action Points
AOB
Q&A

Antitrust Policy

The project's Antitrust Policy, which you can find linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important where multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review and if you have any questions, please contact your company legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF.

New Procedures in API Backlog WG meetings

A number of improvements are under discussion with leadership team of OGW project (Henry), CAMARA Project (Markus), Product Definition WS (Helene) and TSC (Herbert). As of today, the WG adopted agreements are three:

To close the agenda SEVEN DAYS BEFORE the conf. call.
- In case a WG participant wants to include a point in the agenda (e.g., present a new API proposal), this participant shall ensure the corresponding issue is opened in Github by then.
- Exceptional situations will be treated separately.
New schedule of conf. calls
- 2nd Thursday of the month (10-11 CET)
- 4th Thursday of the month (15-16 CET)
Send agenda to TSC mail list, to encourage more TSC member companies to join the call and provide comments when they identify APIs which are of interest for them.

Meeting Minutes within Wiki instead of Github

CAMARA community agreed that meeting minutes would only be recorded in the wiki

Approval of minutes of last conf. call

Minutes of last API backlog WG call available here
- DECISION: The minutes are approved.

Recent Updates & Recap

Technical Steering Committee (TSC)

Last TSC call held on Feb 1st. Minutes available here.
"Network Slicing" API proposal
- Upon sub-project name decision (network slice booking), repo was created (https://github.com/camaraproject/NetworkSliceBooking) → issue 317 is closed
"Call Forwarding Signal" API proposal
- Approved
- Repo was created (https://github.com/camaraproject/CallForwardingSignal) → Issue 359 closed.
"Device Visit Location" API proposal
- Discussion held, with a proposed way forward captured:
  - GSMA OGW product workstream to re-check commercial value of such an API
  - Anti-fraud use case to be reviewed and clarified
  - Remove marketing use case
  - TSC to then agree disclaimer to be included in sub-project repository.
- Issue 330 will be eligible to be closed after TSC approval.

Backlog table

Table updated in PR#387

Review of Action Points

AP #	AP Owner	AP description	Related issue	Due date	Status
20230125-06	Charter Communications	To submit the deck here, and link it to the issue.	378	2024/02/01	Closed
20230125-05	Deutsche Telekom	to improve and clarify the API proposal, based on discussion during the call.	376	2024/02/01	Open
20230125-04	Deutsche Telekom	to improve and clarify the API proposal, based on discussion during the call.	375	2024/02/01	Open
20230125-03	Telecom Italia	to seek codeowners/maintainers from Orange and China Unicom.	359	2024/02/07	Closed
20230125-02	Telefónica	To send out information to TSC, asking for API approval.	359	2024/01/25	Closed
20230125-01	Telefónica	To inform TSC on the decision of Sub-Project name, so that CAMARA admin can proceed with the repo creation	317	2024/01/25	Closed
20240111-04	Telefónica	Open a new PR to update governing document for API submission pipeline	367	2024/02/15	Open

Discussion

Current Issues

330	China Unicom	New API proposal: Device Visit Location The API template is available in PR#329	The issue was discussed in last TSC call (minutes available here). Discussion held, with a proposed way forward captured: GSMA OGW product workstream to re-check commercial value of such an API Anti-fraud use case to be reviewed and clarified Remove marketing use case TSC to then agree disclaimer to be included in sub-project repository. The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.
336	Telefónica	New API proposal: OGW Home Location Verification The API template is available in PR#337. Input from OGW Drop 3	Telefonica: still looking for supporting companies. TIM: interested in participating in the API (no commitment yet to becoming support). The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.
351	Centillion	New Proposal for Authorization for Advertisements, Advertisements Consent, and Measurement The API template is available in PR#386.	PR#386 replaces the existing PR#350. Two templates published: one in the PR thread, and another one as a separate .md file. These templates differ in the "validation" row, where one claims that the API has validated with GSMA Open Gateway, mentioning Mark and Toyeeb explicitly. The chair asked Mark about this. Mark (GSMA): Clarified that Centillion approached him and Toyeeb with the API proposal, but actual validation has not been conducted. He provided a summary of what this API was about, stressing the focus on advertising (advertising-driven revenues). He also noted the multiple dimensions and aspects for thoughtful consideration that this API has. Eric (Vodafone): assked for clarification on "measurement" part in the API proposal name. Mark clarified that the intention is to validate impressions. Jan (Ericsson): wondered whether this API proposal is somewhat related to TMForum-led Operate API "Developer & App onboarding" API as for the consent, specially considering that the TMForum API includes scope, specifying what it is allowed to do and consume (for which purposes). Mark (GSMA): said that this API proposal might have nothing to do with the "Developer & App onboarding" API as for the consent, as they pursue different goals. Jan (Ericsson): noted that a simple figure illustrating the API logic with a high-level workflow would be very helpful. He asked Centillion to attach this figure to the PR. ACTION: to draft a simple figure illustrating the API logic with a high-level workflow, and attach it to the PR. Jose (Telefónica): mentioned that the discussion started in Identity&Consent Sub-Project, and a certain point of time, it was migrated to APIBacklog WG as a new API proposal. He wondered whether there are major differences between what this new API proposes and what was originally discussed in Identity&Consent Sub-Project. Eric (Vodafone): clarified that the ambition of this API proposal is quite different from what was originally discussed. Mark (GSMA) acknowledges this, and stress again the focus on advertising. Jose (Telefónica): proposed to resume the discussion in a call that Nick (Centillion) is able to join. In the meantime, he asked the delegates to prepare a list of questions to ask Nick, so he can provide answers that can help the API proposal move forward. ACTION: delegates from interested parties to prepare a list of questions for this API, for Nick to answer them. DECISION: the discussion will be resumed in a call that Nick (Centillion) is able to join. The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.
367	Governance	Adapt Project StructuresAndRoles.MD to changes in API backlog table (reduction of comments) The aim is to update the governing document to reflect on the updated changes on API submission pipeline, according to the new structure of the API backlog table.	Progress ongoing, and offline discussion on RACI matrix to WoW among OGW Product, CAMARA APIBacklog and CAMARA TSC. PR pending submission. The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.
372	Totogi	New Proposal: Receive SMS No PR available.	The API owner was not present in the call, but the issue was opened and discussed. Jose (Telefónica): noted there is not application template submitted yet. He also clarified that the intention of this API proposal is to cover the gap/delta that was raised in the Send SMS (i.e., in order to the receive delivery receipt separate API to be defined which is to be implemented by the API consumer for sending back the delivery receipt to the 'Send SMS' API consumer in a standardized callback API.) Jan (Ericsson): mentioned that, when working with SMS long time ago, the system needed to support the capability to register virtual MSISDN/phone numbers. He wonders whether it is still required to support this capability. If so, this needs to be captured in the "technical viability" of the application template, when submitted. Jan said he would post this comment in the thread. Mark (GSMA): commented that further details are needed to move discussion forward. Ramit (Airtel): this API proposal, if approved, should be allocated into the existing ShortMessageService repo. Jose (Telefónica): proposed to resume the discussion in a call that the API owner is able to join. DECISION: the discussion will be resumed in a call that Ailton (Topogi) is able to join. The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.
375	Deutsche Telekom	Device Quality Indicator The API template is available in PR#380 Input from OGW Drop 3	The issue was not treated in this conference call – Noel sent apologies in advance. AP 20230125-05 still open. The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.
376	Deutsche Telekom	Best Interconnection The API template is available in PR#381 Input from OGW Drop 3	The issue was not treated in this conference call – Noel sent apologies in advance. AP 20230125-06 still open. The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.
378	Charter Communications	CPE management The API template is available in PR#379. First YAML available here.	Charter Communications presented the slide deck. He clarified that there is an ongoing pilot with an IT enterprise company. Eric (Vodafone): what is the target of companies managing multiple sites? raised concerns when site info is included in the API. Site info can be considered by regulation as Personal Information (PI), and thus unveiling discussions related to the need to capture consent (to be compliant with GDPR). He asked Charter Communications to re-assess how much essential is to include site info in the API. If this info can be removed, then it would avoid regulation-related discussions in the future. MAC addresses can also be considered as PI. ACTION: Re-assess how much essential is to include site info in the API, and if this info can be removed. Mark (GSMA): wondered whether this API represents a closed system.The API is controlling the CPE. For the API to act upon the CPE, do you need to have a contract with the HW manager? Chris (Charter): clarified that the solution features multi-tenancy support. Different tenants (enterprise customers which become API consumers) can coexist, each having visibility only on their isolated networks. Jorge (Telefónica): asked whether the API can be used by companies which do not the CPE. Are the set of use cases totally open for residential users, B2B customers, B2B2C customers...? If so, that would be great, as it helps to reach scale and global footprint. Chris (Chart): confirmed that this API is open to (and can be used by) 3rd parties other than CPE owner. Jorge (Telefónica), Eric (Vodafone): noted the relationship with HomeDevicesQoD, specially with regards to traffic management, and asked Centillion to check existing API definition. Mark (GSMA): we may need to rename the repo HomeDevicesQoD to "CPE management", and includes in that repo all APIs related to device and traffic management in home environments. It is advisable to allocate different features/capabilities into separate APIs (the more fine-grained APIs, the better to have harmonious definitions across operators and reach scale). ACTION: Check potential relationship of this API proposal with existing HomeDevicesQoD, draw conclusions and propose a way forward. The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.

Closed Issues

317

China Unicom

New Proposal: Network Slicing API
The API template is available in PR#333

The repo is available → https://github.com/camaraproject/NetworkSliceBooking

359

Telecom Italia

New API proposal: Call Forwarding Signal
The API template is available in PR#361.

Input from OGW Drop 3

The repo is available → https://github.com/camaraproject/CallForwardingSignal

New Issues

383

T-Mobile US

New Proposal: Capability and Runtime Restrictions
The API template is available in PR#384

The issue was not included in the call agenda, and thus was not treated.

The issue is not eligible to be closed yet.

Action Points

AP #	AP Owner	AP description	Related issue	Due date	Status
20230208-04	Charter Communications	Check potential relationship of this API proposal with existing HomeDevicesQoD, draw conclusions and propose a way forward.	378	2024/02/21	Open
20230208-03	Charter Communications	Re-assess how much essential is to include site info in the API, and if this info can be removed.	378	2024/02/21	Open
20230208-02	WG delegates	Delegates from interested parties to prepare a list of questions for this API, for Nick to answer them.	351	2024/02/21	Open
20230208-01	Charter Communications	To draft a simple figure illustrating the API logic with a high-level workflow, and attach it to the PR.	351	2024/02/21	Open
20230125-05	Deutsche Telekom	to improve and clarify the API proposal, based on discussion during the call.	376	2024/02/01	Open
20230125-04	Deutsche Telekom	to improve and clarify the API proposal, based on discussion during the call.	375	2024/02/01	Open

Decision Points

DP #	DP description	Related issue
20230125-02	the discussion will be resumed in a call that Ailton (Topogi) is able to join.	372
20230125-01	the discussion will be resumed in a call that Nick (Centillion) is able to join.	351

AoB

Next conf. call: 22nd February, 15-16 CET.

Q&A

How does CAMARA API pipeline work?

The pipeline consists of FOUR stages:
A. Submission of the API proposal.
B. Evaluation of the API proposal.
C. API proposal voting & decision.
D. Sub-Project setup.

The following clauses provides details on individual stages.

Stage A: Submission of the API proposal

Participants: API owner.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. To proceed with the submission, the API owner shall follow these steps:

Fill in the template available here and save it with the following name: "APIproposal_<APIname>_<owner>. md" locally.
Create a new issue in the API Backlog Working Group repository, labeled with "API Backlog".
Upload the filled-in template to GitHub repository folder for API proposals via Pull Request. This Pull Request shall be associated to the issue created in the previous step.

Stage B: Evaluation of the API proposal

Participants: API owner, API backlog WG.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. Upon submission, the API owner will present the proposal in the next API backlog WG meeting, to socialize it with the rest of partners. In paralell..

The WG chair checks that the template is duly filled in. Otherwise, the API owner is requested to provide missing information.
After this sanity check, each WG participant declares their support. If a company wants to become supporter of an API, then a delegate of this company needs to add the company's name in the 'supporters' column in the API backlog table. The more support an API proposal gets, the better (it may get more traction).
When the API owner considers the API proposal is in good shape to go for approval, it informs the WG chair accordingly.
Upon receiving this information, the WG chair merges the Pull Request into the main branch, and sends the API proposal to the Technical Steering Committee (TSC) of CAMARA. This action shall be completed at least one week prior to the TSC meeting where the API proposal will be voted upon.

The whole procedure (steps 1-4) should be done within 2 regular meetings of the API Backlog WG. Nonetheless, it is up to the API owner to decide if it wants to shorten or extend this time period.

Stage C: API proposal & voting decision

Participants: TSC.
Description: The proccess is detailed here. Upon receiving the API proposal and notification from the API backlog WG chair, the TSC studies the proosal and votes it at the next TSC meeting.

NOTE 1: Possible decisions outcomes:

Not Accepted: The API proposal is rejected, and thus will not be included in any API Sub-Project. The TSC will need to inform the API backlog WG of this decision, and clarify next steps: either (1) remove this API proposal from backlog, with objecting companies providing justifications why; or (2) ask for changes (e.g., clarifications, corrections, gaps to be addressed) required in order for the API to be re-submitted by the API supporters.
Accepted: In this case, the TSC shall specify whether the API proposal is to be hosted by a new or existing Sub Project.

NOTE 2: The TSC may also propose changes to an API proposal and take the decision considering these changes. The TSC documents the decision in the CAMARA API overview list (fills in columns TSC date and TSC decision / Sub Project; in case of a No-Go "Rejected" is documented there).

Stage D: Sub-Project setup

Participants: API backlog WG, TSC, CAMARA admin team
Description: If an API proposal is accepted and there is a neeed to open a new Sub-Project, the following steps are needed:

Supporting companies propose their initial maintainers to be added for the Sub-Project. The API backlog WG chair centralizes this information, and sends it to the TSC.
The TSC will use this input to oficially nominate the initial maintainers by next TSC meeting.
The CAMARA admin team creates the Sub-Project repository.

NOTE: After the initial maintainers are nominated, the criteria for further maintainers would be three months of active contribution to the sub project. Code owners are to be decided by the maintainers within the subproject.