Maybe wordsmithing, but I think "2 installers and 2 SDN controllers" still means "specific". It is just slightly loosened from "specific one" to "specific two".
I believe that the essence of, and also logically, "must not require a specific ..." really means "any currently available" in OPNFV. Thanks Bin -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Neary Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 12:20 PM To: Christopher Price <[email protected]>; Tapio Tallgren <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]if the l3vpn feature is completed fully in C release Hi, On 01/18/2017 03:31 AM, Christopher Price wrote: > I was not aware that “all installers must support” a feature for there to be > a dovetail suite to validate it. > Maybe we should review the “qualification criteria” again on Friday’s call. The wording we came up with in the test requirements was: * Tests must not require a specific NFVi platform composition or installation tool In other words, not all, but at least 2 installers and 2 SDN controllers should support the feature. Dave. > Completely agree that we need to do this in Gerrit. > > / chris > > On 2017-01-18, 08:59, "Tapio Tallgren" > <[email protected] on behalf of > [email protected]> wrote: > > On 01/18/2017 12:53 AM, Dave Neary wrote: > > Hi Hongbo, Jose, > > > > As I was saying on the Dovetail calls, I have some concerns about moving > > tests into the Dovetail test suite too early. > > > > In the Dovetail test requirements, we have: > > > > "* Test cases must pass on OPNFV reference deployments > > * Tests must not require a specific NFVi platform composition or > > installation tool > > * Tests must not require unmerged patches to the relevant upstream > > projects" > > > > And in the CVP requirements, we have the following section: > > > > "The overall CVP compliance verification scope tied to an OPNFV release > > is determined by the Committee. The OPNFV TSC defines and maintains the > > compliance verification procedures and associated tools. The scope is > > constrained to features, capabilities, components, and interfaces > > included in an OPNFV release that are generally available in the > > industry (e.g., through adoption by an upstream community)." > > > > > > I wonder if this functionality is sufficiently widely adopted in > > commercial NFVi and VIM solutions to pass this bar. > > > > Thanks, > > Dave. > > I have no opinion about L3VPN as such, but I read this to mean that the > code should be part of a released upstream projects and that OPNFV > installers should all support it. > > What would be the best way to discuss these? Currently, the test cases > are on a wiki page which makes it a little difficult to comment them. > Would it make sense to copy the whole test areas and test cases wiki > page to an Etherpad? Or should the whole page be put to gerrit for > commenting? > > -Tapio > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > -- Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
