2025-07-17 TSC Minutes
Attendees & Representation
TSC Members may indicate their attendance with an X in the far column | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Representatives | Organization | Role |
|
@Herbert Damker | Deutsche Telekom AG | Maintainer | x |
@Shilpa Padgaonkar | Deutsche Telekom AG | Maintainer | x |
@Jan Friman | Ericsson | Maintainer |
|
@Toshi Wakayama | KDDI | Maintainer | x |
@Ludovic Robert | Orange | Maintainer | x |
@Tanja de Groot | Nokia | Maintainer, Release Manager | x |
@diego.gonzalezmartinez | Telefonica | Maintainer | x |
@Jose Luis Urien Pinedo | Telefónica | Maintainer | x |
@Eric Murray | Vodafone | Maintainer | x |
@Mahesh Chapalamadugu | Verizon | Maintainer |
|
@Nick Venezia | Centillion.ai | EUC Representative | x |
@massimiliano.troiani | Verizon | EUC Representative |
|
@Doug Makishima | Summit Tech | EUC Representative |
|
George Glass alt: @Olta Vangjeli | TM Forum | TM Form Representative |
|
@Henry Calvert alt: @Mark Cornall | GSMA | GSMA Representative |
|
Community members may use @name tag to mark their attendance
Community: @Alberto Ramos Monaga @Kevin Smith @Thorsten Lohmar @Murat Karabulut @Rafal Artych @Ming Hui Foo
Action Item Review
LF Staff: @Casey Cain
Agenda
The project's Antitrust Policy is linked from the LF and project websites. The policy is important when multiple companies, including potential industry competitors, are participating in meetings. Please review it, and if you have any questions, please contact your company's legal counsel. Members of the LF may contact Andrew Updegrove at the firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the LF. |
Review and approval of previous meeting minutes
General Topics
Governance & project management issues
API Backlog
Commonalities
Identity & Consent Management
Release Management
Specific Topics
...
Any Other Topics
Minutes
Review and approval of previous meeting minutes
Minutes of previous TSC meeting: https://lf-camaraproject.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CAM/pages/152338445
No comment
Action Item Review
See home page Technical Steering Committee for current list of open action items
PR to change the scope of ConsentInfo created as draft: https://github.com/camaraproject/APIBacklog/pull/247
One further ongoing action item
Governance & Project Management issues
Focus is currently on M3 milestone of Fall25 meta-release - thanks a lot to the team of “Release Reviewers”: @Tanja de Groot @Rafal Artych @Kevin Smith @Jose Luis Urien Pinedo @Ludovic Robert @Herbert Damker
Review of release PRs of updates of stable APIs regarding patch vs minor release update
Only one of the previous stable APIs can go with a PATCH update (one-time-password-sms in OTPValidation, going from v1.1.0 to v1.1.1)
All other stable APIs will have at least a minor version update, see details later in ReleaseManagement
Main reason is the drop of error code AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED in most APIs
Going forward we should introduce changes in Commonalities if possible with a “grace period”. With that APIs can decide to apply changes in their next minor or major update, while staying compliant until then.
API Backlog (@Jorge Garcia Hospital)
No new APIs or proposals for this session.
Commonalities (@Rafal Artych )
Changes since r3.2 merged :
Open PR/issues:
correction: https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/pull/490t
artifacts correction:
formatting: https://github.com/camaraproject/Commonalities/issues/447
Summary: No changes directly impacting API specification expected in Commonalities public release.
Release Plan:
Draft release PR Jul 21, 2025
Ready for review Jul 28, 2025
Identity & Consent Management (@Axel Nennker )
https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/issues/298
https://github.com/camaraproject/IdentityAndConsentManagement/issues/288
Multiple Purposes
Should we tackle multiple purposes in ICM
Release Management (@Tanja de Groot)
Fall25 meta-release schedule
Schedule layout was updated to better reflect the actual current practice: we added an M4 milestone for Commonalities and ICM to represent the public release 2 weeks before M4 of the APIs.
Fall25 M3 cut off date for release PRs was delayed to July 8, with a tolerance until this July 17 TSC. However, reviews are not yet completed for all API
Release Management reviews have been prioritized as follows:
stable APIs by July 17 for TSC - OK, review comments under processing by the API teams
updated APIs by July 24 - ongoing
new APIs - anytime - reviewers have been allocated
Target for realistic M3 is July 31
Release Management will declare M3 when API pre-releases are available.
This leaves one month for testing and public release PR creation by M4 on August 30
Detailed status: currently 65 APIs are proposed for the meta-release.
28 new APIs
37 updated APIs (of which 11 stable APIs (all 9 Spring25 stable APIs updates plus 2 first-time stable APIs)
These APIs account for 46 Fall25 candidate repositories
The Fall25 plan will be updated by M3 to reflect the actual content
M3 readiness of (repository) release PRs
43 repositories have release PRs and release review issues
Release Management reviews are ongoing on all issues
>2 are finalized and API pre-releases are available for M3 [update as of July 18th: 15 repository releases done]
Review automation tools greatly help to speed up the reviews - a big thanks to Herbert and the extended release management team !
3 repositories with a release PR in draft mode, with previous PRs still to be merged
WebRTC - under alignment - a lot of work is being done by the team to meet the M3, some delay due to codeowner changes
SessionInsights - not ready - suggest to target Spring26, API team can try to catch up
NetworkAccessManagement - many open issues without PRs, recommend to split yaml and to do a first release outside of meta-release → defer to Spring26
1 repository with release PRs is proposed to not proceed for M3 and skip the Fall25 meta-release:
ClickToDial - suggest to do a first release outside of meta-release and target the Spring26 - many updates needed including API RESTful redesign (recommendations provided)
Release tracker, but no work in progress:
HighThroughputElasticNetworks - no yaml, no PRs → defer to Spring26
IoTSIMFraudPrevention - no scope issue, no yaml, no PRs - defer to Spring26
Focus on Stable API updates (9 from Spring25): MAJOR, MINOR and PATCH are now all possible updates for the meta-release.
API name | Spring25 | Fall25 | Update | Comment | Status RM |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
one-time-password-sms | 1.1.0 | 1.1.1 | PATCH | no AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED error code in previous version, maintenance update only | Ready for approval |
number-verification | 2.0.0 | 2.1.0 | MINOR | removed AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED | PR approved |
sim-swap | 2.0.0 | 2.1.0 | MINOR | removed AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED | PR merged |
quality-on-demand & qos-profiles | 1.0.0 1.0.0 | 1.1.0 1.1.0 | MINOR MINOR | removed AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED (and IDENTIFIER_MISMATCH), minor version updates | PR merged |
device-roaming-status & device-reachability-status | 1.0.0 1.0.0 | 1.1.0 1.1.0 | MINOR MINOR | removed AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED (and IDENTIFIER_MISMATCH), minor version update | PRs approved |
simple-edge-discovery | 1.0.0 | 2.0.0 | MAJOR | removed AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED, major update due to other breaking changes | Ready for approval |
location-verification | 2.0.0 | 3.0.0 | MAJOR | removed AUTHENTICATION_REQUIRED, in addition breaking functional change | PR merged |
NEW: PATCH updates for a meta-release: APIs not doing any MAJOR or MINOR updates can check if only a PATCH updates to align with Fall25 Commonalities and ICM can be done to participate in the Fall25 meta-release.
As currently proposed: release PR at M3, but NO pre-release at M3, only public release for M4 (more precise: after M4 of Commonalities/ICM); However some counter arguments to this:
API provider who prepare their implementations for the meta-release based on release-candidates might not get aware of the change in time
Risk that changes which are not just a PATCH get overseen if the prepared version will not get tested by implementors
Do also for PATCH releases in meta-release cycle always a release candidate to make API Providers aware of the coming change and to do testing of the API
might be waste of resources as there is still time between early M4 and M5 to react on the PATCH changes
Leave it to the API team to chose one of the options
The first option would be good for RM team as it will distribute the work better.
Any feedback from TSC on this point ?
For details, see discussion in issue Allow maintenance releases to participate in the meta-releases · Issue #238 · camaraproject/ReleaseManagement.
For Fall25 meta-release we request the pre-release also for PATCH version updates (both for stable and initial APIs. For initial APIs the release management won’t recommend patch updates).
ISSUE: the current API-Readiness-Checklist has as a mandatory requirement for stable APIs that their previous public release has been certified by GSMA (checklist item 12). This seems to be a blocker given that in many cases the API providers do not apply GSMA certification.
Question to the TSC: should this requirements be somehow relaxed or even removed?
@Herbert Damker to create an issue on Governance repository for this question.
Any Other Business
none
Next Meeting
Next TSC Meeting will be on August 21st, 15:00 UTC
@Herbert Damker @Ludovic Robert @diego.gonzalezmartinez @Tanja de Groot @Toshi Wakayama not there on August 7th, we will skip this instance
Specific agenda topics backlog:
OWASP security guidelines (@Rafal Artych@Kevin Smith ) - if there are more learning within CAMARA
...