DRAFT MINUTES
Attendees
Organization | Name |
Orange | |
Charter Communications | |
CableLabs | |
Telefonica | |
Vodafone | |
Ericsson | |
AT&T | |
T-Mobile US | |
KDDI | Yusuke Nakano |
Slagen | |
Nokia | |
China Telecom | @furong chen |
ZTE | |
KPN | |
GSMA | @reg cox |
Centilion | |
Chunghwa Telecom | |
Deutsche Telekom | |
MTN | |
China Mobile | Ruobei Wang Xie Xin |
Verizon | Mahesh Chapalamadugu Joshua Markham |
PlektonLabs |
Agenda Proposal
Approval of minutes of last conf. call
Recent Updates & Recap
Review of Action Points
Discussion
OGW APIs: #35 (5G New Calling), #50 (Device Management), #63 (IMEI Fraud), #91 (Fixed lines in Device Location APIs), #93 (Line Eligibility for Carrier Billing API), #95 (IoT SIM Status Mgmt API), #96 (IoT SIM Fraud Prevention API), #97 (IoT SMS send API)
Other APIs: #17 (Consent and Measurement), #23 (Carrier Wholesale Pricing), #24 (Steering of Roaming Information), #89 (IP High-throughput Elastic Network)
Governance: #4 (Structures and roles, RACI, Maintainers initiative)
Closing Issues
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 LinusFoundation.
|
 |
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 **The meetings are to be held by Linux Foundation (Links available at GitHub and Confluence Backlog front pages)
2nd Thursday of the month (9-10:30 UTC)
4th Thursday of the month (15-16:30 UTC)
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.
New API proposals are included in backlog table when template PR is created, linking to the pending PR
PR will be merged as soon as ready for TSC, and should be merged before TSC review
API enhancements requires existing group’s validation. TSC is informed accordingly to validate
Link and status in backlog table will be updated accordingly
Approval of minutes of last conf. call
Minutes of last API backlog WG call available here
DECISION: Approved
Recent Updates & Recap
TSC meeting 17th October:
Repository for CustomerInsights created (was approved as “TelcoIndex” in TSC 2024-09-19)
New API proposals brought to TSC (3):
Model As A Service Family:
Supported by China Mobile, ZTE, Huawei. Filled template(below). Original issue: 83. Additional material:
Family proposal: New CAMARA Family to manage Model As a Service features. Includes different APIs that enable a end-to-end management of an AI model that can be exposed to third parties, with following functionalities:
Decision: no comment - Reminder: This API will go in the sandbox. Approved !
Capability and Runtime Restrictions:
Proposed by TMUS. Filled template: link. Original issue: 22. Additional material:
Not API proposal per-se, but a capability that could allow developers know which optional features are supported by the telco operator before an API is called (This is a complementary API). Proposal is to create a mechanism to report
Could be considered as a transversal feature for any API, as per original CAMARA Service Management API APIs.
Question from diego.gonzalezmartinez is this an API? Response: yes to request subscription in order to get notification.
For diego.gonzalezmartinez we should have small API and all the API implemented. Having same API with different level of implementation is an adoption issue. We can have exceptions.
Is it valuable for a developer to discover on the fly an API limitation? Diego is doubtful about the rationale.
Ludovic Robert and Mark Cornall echoed Diego perspective.
G. Murat Karabulut provides an illustration where depending on the (US) States the API may request distinct attributes list. Another example is documented for KYC Match in which
idDocumentis mandatory in some regions.
Shilpa Padgaonkar : let’s leverage the sandbox capabilities to let this API grow up. Sandbox gives a chance to develop API idea.
Jose Luis Urien Pinedo raises the point about the synchronization with the TMF operate API - The restrictions should be also defined in this flow.
Comment: Concern was expressed that such an API, even if developed as a sandbox, might give the wrong impression to external viewers of CAMARA was proceeding - in this case the concern that API providers will only implement a subset of an API’s functionality and use this API to advertise that once the API consumer has access. Some thought should be given as to how sandboxed APIs are to be “isolated” from incubated APIs to avoid giving this impression.
Decision: Ask to G. Murat Karabulut to provide some examples where this API will be useful. To be revisited during the after-next TSC meeting .
Consent URL API:
Supported by Telefonica and KPN. Filled template: link. Original issue: 68. Additional material:
link
Meant for providing an out-of-band consent gathering mechanism that can be triggered in a separated moment (apart from API authentication phase) and in an arbitrary device (not only the API-targeted device), enhancing current mechanisms tied to Authcode or CIBA token flows.
Discussed with ICM WG in particular to define the relationship between this API & ICM
Open discussion, as lack of consensus around AuthCode authentication mechanisms (https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/issues/215 )
Axel Nennker strongly disagrees with this API rationale
Shilpa Padgaonkar Probably the issue comes from the fact that initial assumption is we use only Network-based authentication.
Comment: The discussion within ICM #215 indicates there may be a lack of clarity as to which of CAMARA’s “guidelines” are normative and which are only informative and hence not mandatory. TSC may need to look at formalising rules on this regarding documentation language, layout and approval processes.
Decision: The discussion must continue in ICM first. No decision at this stage.
Other topics
GSMA informed CAMARA Backlog that Open Gateway is considering certain Drop2/3/4 APIs that have been stuck in Backlog, “at risk”, due to lack of support. What this means is that GSMA is pushing our MNOs to actively reconsider within the next 2 weeks if they can support them. By raising it in the Backlog meeting we increase the chance to find enough support to “reactivate” progress.
Best Interconnect
For clarity if any API is not a priority for OGW anymore at this point in time, we still expect they can progress independently in CAMARA.
(new) Sandbox proposal from TSC to speed-up the inclusion of new APIs into CAMARA, fostering the development of new APIs and the finalization of API scope definition.
https://github.com/camaraproject/Governance/pull/161
Backlog table
Table finally updated following last APIs:
|
|
|---|
Backlog procedure to update table from now on:
New API proposals are included in backlog table when template PR is created, linking to the pending PR
PR will be merged as soon as ready for TSC, and should be merged before TSC review
API enhancements requires existing group’s validation. TSC is informed accordingly to validate
Link and status in backlog table will be updated accordingly
Discussion
Current Issues
Issue # | Company | Summary | Status Update |
Centillion | New Proposal for Authorization for Advertisements, Advertisements Consent, and Measurement The API template is available in PR#73. | Published new standards, Next meeting (this time) Nick will bring all the documentation and present everything putted together The issue is not eligible to be closed yet. Pending to provide a concrete API description into the API proposal template Action: Clarifying with interested parties whether this may be a possible API or a Framework etc. AP: provide required information and examples MEETING UPDATE: Nick Venezia : Framework proposal including different APIs that may interact with existing ecosystem. Pending to provide info, work expected to be started in 1Q25 | |
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. | PR is uploaded: New APIbacklog.md by TEF-RicardoSerr · Pull Request #80 · camaraproject/APIBacklog (github.com) PR to be checked and confirmed before issue can be closed Action: Partners to review and validate MEETING UPDATE: Close the issue as table already updated in: | |
TelecomsXChange | New Proposal: Carrier Wholesale Pricing The API template is available in PR#77 First YAML available here | The issue was not treated in this conference call The issue is not eligible to be closed yet. ACTION: Backlog Governance to reach up TelecomXchange to see if the could connect next meetings MEETING UPDATE: Not treated | |
Netfocusin Technologies | New Proposal: Steering of Roaming Management The API template is available in PR#78
| Does not seem to be in the Scope of Camara. Not an east-west (not between telcos) Already included in 3GPP as technical viable (provided in comment) The issue is not eligible to be closed yet. ACTION: Check for support/commitment from the partners (technical implementation approach important) Meeting Update: Not treated | |
China Mobile | 5G New Calling The API template is available PR#31 | Telefonica and Vodafone willing to see the presentation to check whether there is support for this To be treated in next session (still pending for providing extra info) Presentation of current proposal was shared in the meeting. Slides to be included in PR#31. G. Murat Karabulut asked about the proposal been part of WebRTC enhancement or new API → new API. Eric Murray asked about examples of 3rd parties in this API flow → app invoquing API to request or activate features, which can be enabled or not by the telco. Mark Cornall raised the existance of a 5G New Calling project in GSMA: https://www.gsma.com/get-involved/gsma-foundry/5g-new-calling/ & 5GNCTF Meeting#1 ACTION: Operators open to comment/ask for clarification and support the API. Eric Murray asks for user stories that can explain the behaviour of the proposed API, as not clear how this interacts with the proper 5G New Calling standard and how it solves the features that are proposed. AP for Haojie Li MEETING UPDATE: https://github.com/camaraproject/WebRTC/issues/52 to discuss win WebRTC about relationship new information to be uploaded and treated in next session | |
Verizon | Device Management The API template is available PR#30 | The issue was not treated in this conference call The issue is not eligible to be closed yet. Action to contact Verizon to ensure participation in next backlog meeting API proposal presented by Mahesh Chapalamadugu , clarified this proposal is targeted for IoT device management to activate/deactivate/manage the connection of those devices. ACTION:Mahesh Chapalamadugu to upload current yaml for clarification in PR#30, and present again in next meeting. Mahesh Chapalamadugu AP to upload documentation MEETING UPDATE: Slides presented by Mahesh Chapalamadugu & @joshua Slide will be uploaded and reviewed offline before approval | |
MTN | New API proposal - IMEI Fraud The API template is available PR#64 | This API was presented already and included in an existing group but no work was done so discontinued. Now Rebecca is presenting the proposal seeking for support DeviceCheck GSMA proposal overlaps this IMEI Fraud will offer more information to developers than GSMA Device Check service. MTN and other supporters should meet with GSMA to discuss if proceeding with this API within CAMARA still makes sense. Request for meeting already sent by GSMA to MTN Outcome of meeting awaited before deciding if this API proposal should proceed in CAMARA
Eric Murray : (IMEI status) service related, but GSMA is ok for this proposal. ACTION: Pending from MTN for moving on with this API. Maybe to be included in the Device Identifier family. @reg no further information from MTN, consider to de-prioritize, pending to further update Any other operator open to take the lead of this API is welcomed MEETING UPDATE: No update (pending) | |
China Mobile | IP High-throughput Elastic Network The API template is available in PR#90 | Supporting document (presented) https://github.com/camaraproject/APIBacklog/raw/0a447dd4c53d0c675f8d72fc5622ff65eb48f7e3/documentation/SupportingDocuments/APIproposal_IP-high-throughput-elastic-network_ChinaMobile.pptx Jan Friman asked about the relation of this proposal with current CAMARA’s APis dedicated to network config (QoD, slice booking…). @qiuhai explained that this proposal is focused on enabling new network technologies like Srv6 Mark Cornall shared comments about the technology dependence on QoD solutions Kevin Smith & Jorge Garcia Hospital asked for more details on the difference with current proposals METING UPDATE: Pending review from Kevin about responses in the PR. Jorge Garcia Hospital raised concerns about technology dependancy in this API proposal | |
Telefonica | Line Eligibility for Carrier Billing API The API template is available in PR#94 | METING UPDATE: No comments received, issue to be opened in carrier billing subgroups to confirm scope ehancement | |
China Telecom | IoT SIM Status Mgmt API The API template is available in PR#105 | METING UPDATE: Relationship with device management proposal, to confirm relationship. AP: China Telecom | |
China Telecom | IoT SIM Fraud Prevention API The API template is available in PR#103 | METING UPDATE: Jorge Garcia Hospital is it required to create a new set of APIs only for IoT devices or can they live in the existing groups? Eric Murray agrees, device status can take in charge of this new parameters, check first with this subgroup https://github.com/camaraproject/DeviceStatus AP: China Telecom | |
China Telecom | IoT SMS send API The API template is available in PR#104 | METING UPDATE: Jorge Garcia Hospital Mahesh Chapalamadugu requires to validate this proposal with existing SMS Send API https://github.com/camaraproject/ShortMessageService AP: China Telecom |
Closing Issues
Issue # | Company | Summary | Status Update |
T-Mobile US | Capability and Runtime Restrictions The API template is available in PR#74 | It was accepted by the TSC to treat this as a new API Initial YAML files to be included in the API TEMPLATE
MEETING UPDATE: TSC Decision: Ask to G. Murat Karabulut to provide some examples where this API will be useful. To be revisited during the after-next TSC meeting . | |
Totogi | New Proposal: Receive SMS The API template is available in PR#75 |
Seems to fit in the SMS as a new scope enhancement The issue is not eligible to be closed yet. ACTION: Ricardo to formally proceed with the scope enhancement os the SMS group MEETING UPDATE:
| |
Telefonica | New API Proposal: Telco Scoring The API template is available PR#42 Input from OGW Drop 4 | Presented slides: API-Overview-TelcoScore.pptx The API seems to not fit within KYC and new sg should be created. Support is required, feel free Scoring can be calculated both with any user registered in the telco. Less information means less scoring, Algorithm may be different for each of the implementators (MNO) ACTION: Toshi validate if This API may fit within KYC API family → The issue was raised but still under discussion →(Toshi's proposal 20240627) In API Backlog 20240613 meeting, Jorge TEF and Toshi KDDI agreed that the API does not fit within the existing KYC-SP. Then, in KYC-SP 20240625 meeting, that was shared within KYC-SP and there was no objection. Closed. Pending meeting with DT to seek for support. ACTION Noel to come back to TEF Telefonica manage to find the support of VDF (Kevin confirmed in the chat also) and DT if no objections. The name should be readressed, Jorge was prposing Telco Index to avoid using legal restrictions for using words "Credit" and "Scoring". Nick propose Telco Trust → Discussing this in the issue ofline. Tanja (note in chat on behalf of Release Mgmt): Reminder to not use Telco specific terms in API names. To avoid: Telco, operator, CSP, subscriber, customer, EMEI, UE, etc. Pending:
MEETING UPDATE: Pending maintainers | |
Deutsche Telekom | Best Interconnection The API template is available in PR#88 Input from OGW Drop 3 | Seek for support ACTION: See if there is any overlap within EdgeCloud ACTION: Nick (centillion) to review with Noel (DT) about the match of use cases and consider support. DECISION API to be de-prioritised following de-prioritisation by OGW, but to remain in backlog. Issue to remain open. MEETING UPDATE: Not treated | |
Telefonica | New API proposal - Consent URL The API template is available PR#67 | The API proposal was presented, including additional slide info Discussion to follow offline in the issue/PR.
Huub Appelboom supports API proposal G. Murat Karabulut previously raised some concerns but seem clarified with last documentation. (uploaded in API PR#67 and also direct link) Pending: Proposal to be brought to TSC if no other concern is raised before end of week. MEETING UPDATE: under discussion in I&CM | |
China Mobile | Model As A Service Family The API template is available in PR#84 - MaaS (Model As A Service) Family | China Mobile presented the API ACTION: To include support from ZTE and Huawei. Proposals in good shape for been moved to TSC approval, Haojie Li asked for one additional round for more clarifications and comments. MEETING UPDATE: TSC approved, PR merged Pending group creation and maintainer assigning | |
China Mobile | Knowledge Base - Manage The API template is available in PR#84 - Knowledge Base - Manage |
As per 83
| |
China Mobile | Q&A Assistant - Manage The API template is available in PR#84 - Q&A Assistant - Manage |
As per 83 | |
China Mobile | Q&A Assistant - Service The API template is available in PR#84 - Q&A Assistant - Service |
As per 83 | |
Telefonica | Fixed Lines in Location The API template is available in PR#92 | METING UPDATE: Issue in location |
Review of Action Points
AP # | AP Owner | AP description | Related issue | Status |
20240523-01 | API Backlog Governance | Backlog Governance to reach up TelecomXchange & Netfocusin to see if the could connect next meetings | Open | |
20240711-04 | MTN/Chenosis | IMEI Fraud: Check the material shared by Eric/GSMA regarding DeviceCheck, and validate the inclusion of the API in the Device Identifier group
Meeting Update: Waiting for more updates, any other operator open to join | Open | |
20240912-01 | Cablelabs | QualityByDesign:
| Open | |
20240926-01 | Telefonica | Telco Scoring
| Open | |
20240926-03 | China Mobile | 5G New Calling
| Open | |
20240926-04 | Verizon | Device Management
| Closed NEW 20241024-02 | |
20241010-01 | China Mobile | IP High-throughput Elastic Network
Pending review from Kevin about responses in the PR. Jorge Garcia Hospital raised concerns about technology dependancy in this API proposal | Open | |
20241010-02 | ALL | IMEI Fraud
| Open | |
20241024-01 | China Telecom | Clarifications required in IoT API Proposals | Open | |
20241024-02 | Verizon | Device Management
| Open | |
20241024-03 | T-Mobile US | Capability and Runtime Restrictions Ask to G. Murat Karabulut to provide some examples where this API will be useful. To be revisited during the after-next TSC meeting . | Open |
Decision Points
DP # | DP description | Status |
1 | Increase backlog meeting duration from 1 to 1:30:
| Agreed |
2 | Move meeting schedule to UTC:
Or align with TSC:
| Move to UTC aligned with TSC slots. |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
AoB
Proposal to extend meeting half hour (1:30 total) to accomodate all new APIs and also the track of existing.
Agreed
Next Backlog conf. call: 24th October, 15-16 CET/UTC+2.
Next TSC conf. call: 17th October, 16-17:30 CET/UTC+2
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 process 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 process 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 parallel..
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 process is detailed here. Upon receiving the API proposal and notification from the API backlog WG chair, the TSC studies the proposal 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 need 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 officially 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.