Al,
Do you mean the "Baraque" Release Requirements?
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of Al Morton
Sent: Sunday, August 16, 2020 9:58 AM
To: 'opnfv-tech-discuss' <[email protected]>;
opnfv-project-leads <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Jim Baker <[email protected]>; David
McBride ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Jerma Release Meeting: Requirements Working Group
OPNFV PTLs,
During David's Tuesday Release Meeting (right after the TSC meeting), we plan
to use some of the agenda time to cover CNTT BALDY Release Requirements
vetting.
>>> Please Join the Release Meeting to discuss! <<<<
Our progress will be captured on the JERMA Release wiki, in a dedicated page
[0].
I worked through about half of the 150 requirements again yesterday.
In general, it would be better if the requirement wording anticipated more
specific action by the Reference Implementation projects, or the projects
contributing to the Reference Conformance Testing. I view the current
requirement wording as more directed to vendors ("the architecture must allow
for..."), while alternative wording could help testers and accomplish the same
goals ("Test that the API can instantiate one or more VMs, <details>.") Similar
for Ref Implementation...
As I said many times, we will need to engage the CNTT WS leaders and give them
direct feedback that they can implement in their documentation. We also need
CNTT WS Leader dialog on requirement priority, stakeholder support levels, and
release scheduling.
thanks,
Al
[0] https://wiki.opnfv.org/x/wAVbAw
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#24311):
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/24311
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/76227198/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
