08:02:52 <yasufum> #startmeeting tacker
08:02:52 <opendevmeet> Meeting started Mon Dec  1 08:02:52 2025 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is yasufum. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
08:02:52 <opendevmeet> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
08:02:52 <opendevmeet> The meeting name has been set to 'tacker'
08:03:24 <yasufum> So, let's start the meeting.
08:03:55 <yasufum> Today, one topic from hi-koba on the etherpad.
08:04:05 <yasufum> #link https://etherpad.opendev.org/p/tacker-meeting
08:04:05 <hi-koba> hello
08:04:09 <yasufum> hi
08:04:26 <yasufum> can you start your item?
08:04:28 <hi-koba> I have one topic.
08:04:29 <hi-koba> ok
08:05:45 <hi-koba> I want to share some actions for multi-tenancy bug that was shared in vPTG from KDDI.
08:06:59 <hi-koba> i'm cleanup bugs and add more bug details.
08:07:46 <yasufum> sounds good
08:08:51 <hi-koba> In the vPTG,It was suggested feedback to ETSI.
08:10:09 <hi-koba> But, I  think this is not an ETSI spec issue, simply an bug.
08:11:55 <yasufum> hmm
08:12:25 <hi-koba> So, I plan to add a simple diagram to show that only VNFD-resource are not tenant-isolated.
08:12:59 <hi-koba> I think we can provide feedback to ETSI if needed.
08:14:46 <hi-koba> I think this is how I can contribute to the ETSI feedback.
08:15:38 <hi-koba> Any comments or suggestions?
08:15:44 <takahashi-tsc> I checked the summary of the bug, and thought that it might just be a simple bug.
08:16:07 <takahashi-tsc> Anyway, I think it would be good to simply report it as a bug first.
08:17:07 <takahashi-tsc> After the reporting, we can decide if we should change it to wishlist, if we need to give some feedback to NFV, etc.
08:17:47 <hi-koba> Thank you for the comment.
08:18:27 <hi-koba> I'll add more details to clearly explain that the bug is and how it happens.
08:18:49 <yasufum> hi-koba: Let me clarify the conclusion of the vPTG's discussion?
08:19:17 <yasufum> The title is "[bug-fix] Fix VNF-Package Multi-tenancy issues (hi-koba@KDDI)", correct?
08:19:38 <hi-koba> Yes
08:22:19 <yasufum> I'm not sure what is the discussion point if you propose something feedback to ETSI from the etherpad.
08:23:37 <yasufum> Was there something comment from kuno-san about it>
08:23:39 <yasufum> ?
08:26:02 <takahashi-tsc> According to the NFV specification, "VNFDs must be unique," but the scope of the uniqueness is ambiguous.
08:26:29 <yasufum> I see
08:26:38 <takahashi-tsc> I think it's a good idea to provide feedback regarding this point. However, before that, I believe we should first discuss within the Tacker communty what Tacker's current specifications are and what we want them to be.
08:28:40 <hi-koba> Thanks for the addition
08:28:58 <hi-koba> I understood the vPTG comment as: since the ETSI spec does not define the tenant concept, we may need to send some feedback to ETSI if necessary.
08:29:31 <hi-koba> But I also understood that the tenant concept can be treated as a practical / implementation concept, and it does not have to be defined in the standard itself.
08:29:46 <hi-koba> So I would like to update the bug description to make it clear that this is an implementation bug in Tacker (about tenant isolation for VNFD), not a spec issue.
08:30:25 <yasufum> OK, understand. Thanks.
08:31:54 <hi-koba> Thank you very much. I will add a bug description this week.
08:32:01 <yasufum> thx
08:32:05 <yasufum> It seems enough for today.
08:32:21 <yasufum> So, let's close this meeting if no more comment.
08:32:32 <hi-koba> ok
08:32:35 <takahashi-tsc> Nothing from my side.
08:32:38 <yasufum> good
08:32:46 <yasufum> Thank you for joining today, bye!
08:32:56 <takahashi-tsc> thanks!
08:33:10 <hi-koba> thank you! bye!
08:33:13 <yasufum> #endmeeting