Page History

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.