[opnfv-tech-discuss] reply: [dovetail]dovetail Danube-based cvp planning etherpad

[Tianhongbo]

Hi:

Thanks wenjing.

I have put this link to the dovetail wiki page.

It will be easier for people to find this.

Best regards

hongbo

发件人: Wenjing Chu
发送时间: 2017年2月25日 2:26
收件人: Tianhongbo; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
主题: [dovetail]dovetail Danube-based cvp planning etherpad

Thanks for everyone in the call.

Per today’s dovetail weekly call, I’ve taken the action item of starting an 
etherpad for putting together a plan for implementing a Danube-based cvp. This 
is meant for a high level plan (not detailed work items) that addresses the 
most important questions for an executable plan. (Sort of like an executive 
summary). When completed, the content of this etherpad will then be summarized 
to present to the TSC for technical review and the Board for approval. All 
inputs must be completed ASAP. We will review during weekly calls on March 3 
and 10. So if you are keen on contributing in this process, please take action 
early and participate in the March 3 and 10 calls. Thanks.

https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/Dovetail_Danube_Planning

Regards
Wenjing

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Tianhongbo
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:40 PM
To: Jose Lausuch mailto:jose.laus...@ericsson.com>>; 
Christopher Price 
mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>; 
'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV' 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/24

Hi jose:

Appreciate your effort on the cooperation.

Let transform the information to the action items.

See you in the dovetail meeting.

Best regards

hongbo

发件人: Jose Lausuch [mailto:jose.laus...@ericsson.com]
发送时间: 2017年2月23日 17:35
收件人: Tianhongbo; Christopher Price; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
主题: RE: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/24

Hi,

During the first 2 days at the PTG, I have been talking to the Interop WG and 
to the RefStack PTL to grab as much info as I could about how they are doing 
certification and what tools they use. They are excited about this 
collaboration and willing to work with us on this initiative but need our help.

Please let me expose during the call the feedback I got, open questions and the 
action points for us. Then, we can think about a plan and how to start 
executing things as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Jose


From: Tianhongbo [mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 05:42 AM
To: Christopher Price; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
Cc: Jose Lausuch
Subject: 答复: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/24

Hi Chris:

Ok, I will put these as the first point on the agenda.

Yes, that is true that before the dovetail wok, we need to get the clear 
strategy from the CVP. Last week, wenjing shared the feedback from board.
We can discuss and get the consensus on that. It will make the dovetail go to 
right direction.

Thank you for participating the joint discussion for the interp WG and OPNFV. I 
will put that on the agenda to see how the dovetail and interop WG can 
cooperate.

For the test case results and tool, we have discussed several times in the test 
group. We have the consensus that the dovetail will use as much as possible 
from the test group.
I will put this on the agenda, let us make this more clear.

Best regards

hongbo


发件人: Christopher Price [mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com]
发送时间: 2017年2月22日 17:50
收件人: Tianhongbo; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
抄送: Jose Lausuch
主题: Re: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/24

Hi Hongbo,

I would like to ensure we are discussing the CVP test strategy document as a 
priority point on the agenda.  My recollection of the discussion from last week 
was that our Jira planning, utilization and structure would be best done in 
conjunction with the document of how we will test and structure our work. This 
may be best to try and achieve consensus on before we start to dig into Jira 
task tracking directly to ensure everyone has a chance to understand what is 
being discussed.  Given the strategy document has been clearly identified as a 
pre-requisite to our program it feels like something we should prioritize.

As the PTG was this week and we had a number of people there discussing an NFV 
compliance suite with the interop WG to discuss integration with OPNFV testing 
WG activities I think we should likely include a readout of that as a topic 
point.

For the test case results, could we have a discussion around how we might use 
(or clone) the existing test result collection and reporting mechanisms we use 
for our testing projects.  I do not recall if there were any specific 
requirements from the CVP that prohibit us from using those, or adding any 
missing capabilities.  But it would be worth discussing that I think.  
Leveraging our upstream communities and mechanisms will require us to have a 
clear structure and process for result handling that likely should not be 
handled in the execution processes but ra

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] Danube stable branch date and time

[David McBride]

Team,

I took an action at the last release meeting to specify a specific time for
closing the stable branch on March 10.  We will close the stable branch at
12 p.m. (noon PST) on March 10.

Note that I have another action that is in process to update the stable
branch instructions for Danube.  I will email the team when those
instructions are available.

Let me know if you have any questions.  Thanks.

David

-- 
*David McBride*
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [mano-wg] OPNFV Release-E agreements and Priority and impact of ONAP on MANO Projects- Meeting#20

[Prakash Ramchandran]

Hi all,

I am adding the agreements we have to date for Release-E -Content for MANO 
Projects at high level. below. Also I have prioritized based on discussions and 
debates in MANO WG over last 5 meetings.
Tentatively can  update Release-E link for 
MANO but final 
agreements we should arrive  by February 28  to make it official , unless there 
is a request for additional time due to ONAP  which we will discuss on March1st 
meeting.

Please reply emails and  address  any concerns you may have . Plus like to hear 
if we need a JIRA account for MANO WG to document this with more details or 
just update the Release-E 
link and let 
projects add the JIRA tickets for their work with respect to four priorities 
listed.


Please join us Wednesday March 1st  Regards to OPNFV Release-E agreements and 
Priority and impact of ONAP on MANO Projects - Meeting#20

Agenda:

https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827111

Agenda includes E-Release agreements and ONAP inputs.

Meeting Times: Every Even Wednesday at 15.00 UTC (7.00 am PST)  as per Project 
requests

 IRC#opnfv-mano (meetbot is set for meeting minutes)

GOTOMEETING:

1.  Please join my meeting.(refer to 
schedules)
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/843517045

2.  Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended.  Or, 
call in using your telephone.

United States: +1 (312) 757-3119
United States (toll-free): 1 877 309 2070

Access Code: 843-517-045
Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting

Meeting ID: 843-517-045

March 1st, Wednesday : 15.00 UTC /7.00 PST  Meeting #20

  1.  Agenda Bashing
  2.  Need JIRA for consolidating E-Rlease Priority for MANO WG / Alternate to 
refer to JIRA per MANO Projects?
  3.  ONAP 

 and its impact on MNAO WG for OPERA (OPEN-O/ECOMP)
  4.  Final Agreements for Release E by both Orchestra , Opera and other 
participating projects + Upstream
Agreements Approval by MANO WG team
Consolidated E-Release inputs from MANO WG
MANO Projects in E release will focus on test tools for integration and testing 
MANO stack  from Meeting #18
 Agreed consistency across MANO stacks we mean "Consistency of end users 
experience" from Meeting #18
Priority 1 is Integrating MANO Stack Components over OPNFV VIM from Meeting #19 
2017
Priority 2  is considerations for agreement on VNF On-boarding from Meeting #19 
2017
Priority 3 is Continuing on Reviewing Best Practices for VNF On-boarding & LCM 
from Meeting #19 2017 plus EUAG 
reference
Priority 4 Use inputs from OSM for VNFD and NSD challenges. from Meeting #15 
-2016


Thanks
Prakash
Prakash Ramchandran
[logo_huawei] R&D USA
FutureWei Technologies, Inc
Email: prakash.ramchand...@huawei.com
Work:  +1 (408) 330-5489
Mobile: +1 (408) 406-5810
2330 Central Expy, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA






___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

[Yujun Zhang (ZTE)]

You may use history in Github as an automatic query.

https://github.com/opnfv/storperf/commits/master/tests


On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:07 AM Beierl, Mark  wrote:

> Not really. Tests go with the code change. They are not separate.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> *Mark Beierl*
> Advisory Solutions Architect
> *Dell **EMC* | Office of the CTO
> mobile +1 613 314 8106 <1-866-123-4567>
> mark.bei...@dell.com 
>
>
> On Feb 24, 2017, at 18:40, David McBride 
> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> Could you send me a git query, instead?  For example, for QTIP:
> https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/q/project:qtip+AND+topic:tests
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Beierl, Mark 
> wrote:
>
> Responses for StorPerf:
>
> Test Framework Projects
>
>1. Please provide a list of commits for your self-validation tests.
>
>
> As with other projects, the list of commits would be very large.  The
> self-validation occurs on git review, and the Jenkins job can be found
> here: https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/storperf/job/storperf-verify-master/
> There are just over 100 self-validation tests which provide 69% code
> coverage.
>
> There is now a Test Results DB dashboard for StorPerf:
> http://testresults.opnfv.org/reporting/display/master/storperf/status-apex.html
>
>
> Preliminary Documentation Requirement
>
>1. Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your
>project.
>
>
> http://artifacts.opnfv.org/storperf/docs/index.html
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> *Mark Beierl*
> Advisory Solutions Architect
> *Dell **EMC* | Office of the CTO
> mobile +1 613 314 8106 <1-613-314-8106>
> mark.bei...@dell.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> *David McBride*
> Release Manager, OPNFV
> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
> Skype: davidjmcbride1
> IRC: dmcbride
>
> ___
> opnfv-project-leads mailing list
> opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-project-leads
>
-- 
Yujun Zhang
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

[Beierl, Mark]

Not really. Tests go with the code change. They are not separate.

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
Advisory Solutions Architect
Dell EMC | Office of the CTO
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com


On Feb 24, 2017, at 18:40, David McBride 
mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:

Mark,

Could you send me a git query, instead?  For example, for QTIP:  
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/q/project:qtip+AND+topic:tests

David

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Beierl, Mark 
mailto:mark.bei...@dell.com>> wrote:
Responses for StorPerf:

Test Framework Projects

  1.  Please provide a list of commits for your self-validation tests.

As with other projects, the list of commits would be very large.  The 
self-validation occurs on git review, and the Jenkins job can be found here: 
https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/storperf/job/storperf-verify-master/
There are just over 100 self-validation tests which provide 69% code coverage.

There is now a Test Results DB dashboard for StorPerf: 
http://testresults.opnfv.org/reporting/display/master/storperf/status-apex.html
Preliminary Documentation Requirement

  1.  Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your project.

http://artifacts.opnfv.org/storperf/docs/index.html

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
Advisory Solutions Architect
Dell EMC | Office of the CTO
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com




--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

[David McBride]

Mark,

Could you send me a git query, instead?  For example, for QTIP:
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/q/project:qtip+AND+topic:tests

David

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Beierl, Mark  wrote:

> Responses for StorPerf:
>
> Test Framework Projects
>
>1. Please provide a list of commits for your self-validation tests.
>
>
> As with other projects, the list of commits would be very large.  The
> self-validation occurs on git review, and the Jenkins job can be found
> here: https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/storperf/job/storperf-verify-master/
> There are just over 100 self-validation tests which provide 69% code
> coverage.
>
> There is now a Test Results DB dashboard for StorPerf: http://testresults.
> opnfv.org/reporting/display/master/storperf/status-apex.html
>
> Preliminary Documentation Requirement
>
>1. Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your
>project.
>
>
> http://artifacts.opnfv.org/storperf/docs/index.html
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> *Mark Beierl*
> Advisory Solutions Architect
> *Dell **EMC* | Office of the CTO
> mobile +1 613 314 8106 <1-613-314-8106>
> mark.bei...@dell.com
>
>


-- 
*David McBride*
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Project proposals for adding analytics to OPNFV

[Yujun Zhang (ZTE)]

As QTIP PTL, I am particularly interested in Bamboo project.

If I understand it correctly, it could be used to develop or deploy (not
sure about the way of integration yet) the benchmark hub in QTIP
architecture[1].

The benchmark hub is supposed to be a sink of all data produced by QTIP.

[1]: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/qtip/Architecture

Excuse me for late response, but better than never.

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:56 AM Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <
fbroc...@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi OPNFV,
>
>
>
> over the past few weeks we’ve distilled two proposals to add analytics and
> more diagnostic capabilities to OPNFV and OPNFV scenarios. We’ve published
> the two new project proposals on the wiki:
>
> ·   Bamboo:
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/bamboo/Bamboo+Project+Proposal
>
> ·   VINA: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vina/VINA+Project+Proposal
>
>
>
> Bamboo is to introduce the analytics infrastructure provided by PNDA.io to
> OPNFV. VINA is to offer discovery and system health status for VIMs. Both
> projects are to work and in hand and are expected to integrate with both
> Barometer, VES, Qtip, etc. – as well as integrate with the testresults
> post-processing that we already do.
>
>
>
> We’re hoping for a discussion in the technical community meeting on
> Feb/23, and are also asking for an official TSC review post the technical
> community review. Target would be the TSC call on March/7.
>
>
>
> Your thoughts and ideas are greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks much, Frank
>
>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>
-- 
Yujun Zhang
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

[David McBride]

Yingjun,

In order to be part of the release, Opera needs to be running on OPNFV CI.
At this point, I think that you will need to defer your project to the E
release.

David

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Yingjun Li  wrote:

>
>
> a.
>
> b.David
>
> The following is MS6 update about OPERA.
>
> c.
>
> d.Enabling testing for your project in the Functest repo (or other
> test framework repo if you are not using functest)
>
> e.
>
> f. OPERA VNF deployment and test entries has been integrated with
> FuncTest framework. The integration scripts are still under development.
>
> g.https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/26769/
>
> h.https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/26769/8/functest/
> opnfv_tests/vnf/ims/opera_ims.py
>
> Test case implementation in your project repo: OPERA test case
> implementations is under developing and haven’t checked in yet.
>
> 2.Please indicate whether the scenarios with which your project is
> integrated are visible on the Functest dashboard.  If not, why?
>
> 3.  OPERA is not running under FuncTest/Compass. It is running on
> OPERA CI
>
> a. *https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/opera/
> *
>
> b.
>
> c. Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your
> project.
>
> d.*https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/29335/1
> *
>
> e.
>
> Thanks
>
> Yingjun
>
>
>
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *David McBride
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:30 PM
> *To:* opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][danube] MS6 compliance
> assessment
>
>
>
> Team,
>
>
>
> I'd like to request that the PTLs for projects participating in Danube
> respond to the following questions, designed to assess compliance with MS6.
> Feature Projects
>
> 4.Please provide a list of commits for the following:
>
> a. Enabling testing for your project in the Functest repo (or other
> test framework repo if you are not using functest)
>
> b.Test case implementation in your project repo.
>
> 5.Please indicate whether the scenarios with which your project is
> integrated are visible on the Functest dashboard.  If not, why?
> Test Framework Projects
>
> 1.Please provide a list of commits for your self-validation tests.
> Preliminary Documentation Requirement
>
> 1.Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your
> project.
>
>
>
>
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> --
>
> *David McBride*
>
> Release Manager, OPNFV
>
> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
>
> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
>
> Skype: davidjmcbride1
>
> IRC: dmcbride
>



-- 
*David McBride*
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

[David McBride]

Team,

Thanks for your responses, thus far.  However, quite a few of you are
forgetting to respond to the *preliminary documentation requirement* that
also applies to MS6, in addition to the test case implementation
requirement.

Preliminary Documentation Requirement

1.  Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your
project.


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 12:30 PM, David McBride <
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Team,
>
> I'd like to request that the PTLs for projects participating in Danube
> respond to the following questions, designed to assess compliance with MS6.
> Feature Projects
>
>1. Please provide a list of commits for the following:
>   1. Enabling testing for your project in the Functest repo (or other
>   test framework repo if you are not using functest)
>   2. Test case implementation in your project repo.
>2. Please indicate whether the scenarios with which your project is
>integrated are visible on the Functest dashboard.  If not, why?
>
> Test Framework Projects
>
>1. Please provide a list of commits for your self-validation tests.
>
> Preliminary Documentation Requirement
>
>1. Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your
>project.
>
>
>
> Let me know if you have any questions.
>
> David
>
> --
> *David McBride*
> Release Manager, OPNFV
> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
> Skype: davidjmcbride1
> IRC: dmcbride
>



-- 
*David McBride*
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-project-leads] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

[Beierl, Mark]

Responses for StorPerf:

Test Framework Projects

  1.  Please provide a list of commits for your self-validation tests.

As with other projects, the list of commits would be very large.  The 
self-validation occurs on git review, and the Jenkins job can be found here: 
https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/storperf/job/storperf-verify-master/
There are just over 100 self-validation tests which provide 69% code coverage.

There is now a Test Results DB dashboard for StorPerf: 
http://testresults.opnfv.org/reporting/display/master/storperf/status-apex.html
Preliminary Documentation Requirement

  1.  Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your project.

http://artifacts.opnfv.org/storperf/docs/index.html

Regards,
Mark

Mark Beierl
Advisory Solutions Architect
Dell EMC | Office of the CTO
mobile +1 613 314 8106
mark.bei...@dell.com

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] E-release schedule

[David McBride]

Thanks to everyone for your feedback in this thread.  Also, thanks to Ash
and Randy with whom I talked at OSLS last week.  It's clear from the
feedback that the community, including our end users, feel strongly about
having additional releases, beyond the standard, 6-month major release
cadence.

I think that Frank's description of monthly micro-releases is compelling
and I believe that the work that Fatih, Jack, and Uli are doing with CI
evolution and cross-community CI may enable us to consider this type of
release process in the future.

In the mean time, I'm withdrawing my proposal to drop the 2.0 and 3.0
follow-on releases for the upcoming "E" - major release.  I have
uploaded a revised
schedule  to the wiki.  We
will discuss the schedule again at the next TSC call.  Feel free to
continue to respond to this thread with your comments and questions.

David

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Randy Levensalor <
r.levensa...@cablelabs.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the feedback and ideas of solving our challenges with running
> OPNFV as a VNF development and evaluation platform.
>
> I was not trying to prescribe a specific solution, but wanted to call out
> the challenges that we are encountering when running OPFNV in our NFV labs.
>
> The direction of Tim and Frank’s feedback could help address these
> challenges.  Enabling the installer teams to focus on maintenance post
> release.
>
> Enabling scenario teams to rollout new scenarios in maintenance releases
> that do NOT negatively impact the stability of the currently supported
> scenarios could be a reasonable compromise.  Or just following the strict
> model as outlined by Ulrich would help with the stability.
>
> Please don’t break backwards compatibility of the configuration files
> during maintenance releases.  Changing configuration files with major
> releases would be manageable.
>
>
> Many Thanks,
>
> Randy Levensalor | r.levensa...@cablelabs.com
> CableLabs® | o 303.661.3455 | c 970.214.1316
>
>
> On 2/22/17, 8:18 AM, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" 
> wrote:
>
> That makes sense.  The whole point of micro-releases would be to
> release scenarios once they are ready - and it falls into the
> responsibility of a scenario owner to shepherd the process. Micro-releases
> should *not* be a vehicle to push other teams to go out of their way.
>
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Rozet [mailto:tro...@redhat.com]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 22. Februar 2017 15:53
> To: Ulrich Kleber 
> Cc: Randy Levensalor ; Frank Brockners
> (fbrockne) ; David McBride <
> dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] E-release schedule
>
> I think having maintenance releases makes sense.  From an installer
> perspective, if folks want to add a new scenario for a maintenance release
> then they need to carry most of the weight of integrating it.  It is hard
> for a small team like Apex to juggle adding features for a previous release
> while rushing to get the next version of OS to work for the following
> release.  Bug fixing and documentation updates I think we are fine with for
> maintenance releases.
>
> Tim Rozet
> Red Hat SDN Team
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ulrich Kleber" 
> To: "Randy Levensalor" , "Frank Brockners
> (fbrockne)" , "David McBride" <
> dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>, "TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV" <
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>, opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:00:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] E-release schedule
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> what Randy explains would mean that we should move to a very strict
> concept of maintenance releases.
>
> That would mean we carry through our milestones properly to get the
> 1.0 release out. After that we should only do bug fixing. Not a single
> feature.
>
> If we do that, 2.0 and 3.0 will not take big efforts, but each provide
> better stability. It shouldn’t even be a problem to do 4.0 if there are
> urgent fixes.
>
> But we should be strict then: Every feature that misses the 1.0, has
> to wait for the next major release.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Uli
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:
> opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Randy Levensalor
> Sent: Friday, 17 February, 2017 00:16
> To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne); David McBride; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV;
> opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release] E-release schedule
>
>
>
>
> Frank, +1 on your suggestions.
>
> David, I applaud your effort to reduce the overhead for the community.
>
>
>
> TL;DR Today I spend > 80% of my time getting OPNFV to run and I’d
> prefer to spend > 80% of my time running VNFs on O

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

[Yingjun Li]

a.
b.David
The following is MS6 update about OPERA.
c.
d.Enabling testing for your project in the Functest repo (or other test 
framework repo if you are not using functest)
e.
f. OPERA VNF deployment and test entries has been integrated with FuncTest 
framework. The integration scripts are still under development.
g.https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/26769/
h.
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/26769/8/functest/opnfv_tests/vnf/ims/opera_ims.py
Test case implementation in your project repo: OPERA test case implementations 
is under developing and haven’t checked in yet.
2.Please indicate whether the scenarios with which your project is 
integrated are visible on the Functest dashboard.  If not, why?
3.  OPERA is not running under FuncTest/Compass. It is running on OPERA CI
a. https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/opera/
b.
c. Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your project.
d.https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/29335/1
e.
Thanks
Yingjun

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of David McBride
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:30 PM
To: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

Team,

I'd like to request that the PTLs for projects participating in Danube respond 
to the following questions, designed to assess compliance with MS6.
Feature Projects
4.Please provide a list of commits for the following:
a. Enabling testing for your project in the Functest repo (or other test 
framework repo if you are not using functest)
b.Test case implementation in your project repo.
5.Please indicate whether the scenarios with which your project is 
integrated are visible on the Functest dashboard.  If not, why?
Test Framework Projects
1.Please provide a list of commits for your self-validation tests.
Preliminary Documentation Requirement
1.Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your project.


Let me know if you have any questions.

David

--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [project proposal] samplevnf

[HU, BIN]

Hi Brian and Deepak,

Thank you for the proposal. How about we discuss it at weekly technical 
discussion on Thursday March 9th? Our agenda on March 2nd is quite full.

Thank you
Bin

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of S, Deepak
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 6:20 AM
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: Padubidri, Sanjay A ; Vandris, Steve 
; Barrett, Vinny ; Ramia, 
Kannan Babu ; Mangan, Peter 

Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [project proposal] samplevnf


Hello OPNFV TSC and OPNFV community,



We would like to propose the "samplevnf" project for OPNFV and request your 
review.

Please find the details of the proposed project at 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Proposal%3A+samplevnf
  .



Thanks and Best Regards,

Brian J Skerry & Deepak S






___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail Danube-based cvp planning etherpad

[Wenjing Chu]

Thanks for everyone in the call.

Per today’s dovetail weekly call, I’ve taken the action item of starting an 
etherpad for putting together a plan for implementing a Danube-based cvp. This 
is meant for a high level plan (not detailed work items) that addresses the 
most important questions for an executable plan. (Sort of like an executive 
summary). When completed, the content of this etherpad will then be summarized 
to present to the TSC for technical review and the Board for approval. All 
inputs must be completed ASAP. We will review during weekly calls on March 3 
and 10. So if you are keen on contributing in this process, please take action 
early and participate in the March 3 and 10 calls. Thanks.

https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/Dovetail_Danube_Planning

Regards
Wenjing

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Tianhongbo
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 4:40 PM
To: Jose Lausuch ; Christopher Price 
; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV' 

Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/24

Hi jose:

Appreciate your effort on the cooperation.

Let transform the information to the action items.

See you in the dovetail meeting.

Best regards

hongbo

发件人: Jose Lausuch [mailto:jose.laus...@ericsson.com]
发送时间: 2017年2月23日 17:35
收件人: Tianhongbo; Christopher Price; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
主题: RE: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/24

Hi,

During the first 2 days at the PTG, I have been talking to the Interop WG and 
to the RefStack PTL to grab as much info as I could about how they are doing 
certification and what tools they use. They are excited about this 
collaboration and willing to work with us on this initiative but need our help.

Please let me expose during the call the feedback I got, open questions and the 
action points for us. Then, we can think about a plan and how to start 
executing things as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Jose


From: Tianhongbo [mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 05:42 AM
To: Christopher Price; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
Cc: Jose Lausuch
Subject: 答复: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/24

Hi Chris:

Ok, I will put these as the first point on the agenda.

Yes, that is true that before the dovetail wok, we need to get the clear 
strategy from the CVP. Last week, wenjing shared the feedback from board.
We can discuss and get the consensus on that. It will make the dovetail go to 
right direction.

Thank you for participating the joint discussion for the interp WG and OPNFV. I 
will put that on the agenda to see how the dovetail and interop WG can 
cooperate.

For the test case results and tool, we have discussed several times in the test 
group. We have the consensus that the dovetail will use as much as possible 
from the test group.
I will put this on the agenda, let us make this more clear.

Best regards

hongbo


发件人: Christopher Price [mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com]
发送时间: 2017年2月22日 17:50
收件人: Tianhongbo; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
抄送: Jose Lausuch
主题: Re: [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting 2/24

Hi Hongbo,

I would like to ensure we are discussing the CVP test strategy document as a 
priority point on the agenda.  My recollection of the discussion from last week 
was that our Jira planning, utilization and structure would be best done in 
conjunction with the document of how we will test and structure our work. This 
may be best to try and achieve consensus on before we start to dig into Jira 
task tracking directly to ensure everyone has a chance to understand what is 
being discussed.  Given the strategy document has been clearly identified as a 
pre-requisite to our program it feels like something we should prioritize.

As the PTG was this week and we had a number of people there discussing an NFV 
compliance suite with the interop WG to discuss integration with OPNFV testing 
WG activities I think we should likely include a readout of that as a topic 
point.

For the test case results, could we have a discussion around how we might use 
(or clone) the existing test result collection and reporting mechanisms we use 
for our testing projects.  I do not recall if there were any specific 
requirements from the CVP that prohibit us from using those, or adding any 
missing capabilities.  But it would be worth discussing that I think.  
Leveraging our upstream communities and mechanisms will require us to have a 
clear structure and process for result handling that likely should not be 
handled in the execution processes but rather a specific server based solution.

/ Chris


From: Tianhongbo 
mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 22 February 2017 at 06:07
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>,
 Christopher Price 
mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>, Dave 
Neary mailto:dne...@redhat.com>>, 
"'marko.a.kui...@nokia.com'" 
mailto:marko.a.kui...@nokia.com>>, "'Rautakumpu, Mika 
(Nokia - FI/Espoo)'" 
mailto:mika.raut

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Project proposals for adding analytics to OPNFV

[Koren Lev (korlev)]

Hi Uli.

Yes, some of the x.731 definex states will be looked for. Also states from 
virtual environments that are not defined. In simple terms looking for what 
makes a virtual interconnect 'up' or 'down' and the end points.

Multi-site (and multi distro. Multi hosts and clusters) is indeed in the focus 
;-)

Best regards
Koren



Sent from my Samsung device


 Original message 
From: Ulrich Kleber 
Date: 2/23/17 17:12 (GMT+02:00)
To: "Koren Lev (korlev)" 
Cc: "John Evans (joevans)" , "Donald Hunter (donaldh)" 
, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" , 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: Project proposals for adding analytics to OPNFV

Hi,
the time in the discussion call was over, so I like to put two questions about 
VINA here on the list.


1.   When I read the proposal in the wiki, I got the impression VINA would 
focus very much on operational state.
When you use that term, do you do it in the X.731 way, and which are the 
managed objects that will be covered?

2.   You mentioned highly distributed clusters. Will you also interface 
with multisite then?

Thanks,
Uli


From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Frank 
Brockners (fbrockne)
Sent: Tuesday, 07 February, 2017 17:56
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: Koren Lev (korlev); John Evans (joevans); Donald Hunter (donaldh)
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Project proposals for adding analytics to OPNFV

Hi OPNFV,

over the past few weeks we’ve distilled two proposals to add analytics and more 
diagnostic capabilities to OPNFV and OPNFV scenarios. We’ve published the two 
new project proposals on the wiki:

•   Bamboo: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/bamboo/Bamboo+Project+Proposal

•   VINA: https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/vina/VINA+Project+Proposal

Bamboo is to introduce the analytics infrastructure provided by PNDA.io to 
OPNFV. VINA is to offer discovery and system health status for VIMs. Both 
projects are to work and in hand and are expected to integrate with both 
Barometer, VES, Qtip, etc. – as well as integrate with the testresults 
post-processing that we already do.

We’re hoping for a discussion in the technical community meeting on Feb/23, and 
are also asking for an official TSC review post the technical community review. 
Target would be the TSC call on March/7.

Your thoughts and ideas are greatly appreciated.

Thanks much, Frank

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [project proposal] samplevnf

[Ramia, Kannan Babu]

Hi Morgan

You are right this is the same Industry Standard Benchmarking (ISB), which was 
introduced by Clive in the OPNFV summit#1. As promised at that time, now we 
delivered the test harness part of that program into the Yardstick project and 
the VNFs part is the below project proposal. 

The capabilities that we promised (on VNF characterization, benchmarking) are 
in the way getting into these two projects. I would be glad to see your 
participation and support for this project.

Regards
Kannan Babu
Lead Archtiect

-Original Message-
From: morgan.richo...@orange.com [mailto:morgan.richo...@orange.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 8:04 PM
To: S, Deepak ; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: Padubidri, Sanjay A ; Vandris, Steve 
; Barrett, Vinny ; Ramia, 
Kannan Babu ; Mangan, Peter 
; kumar rishabh ; Marseille, 
Thierry 
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [project proposal] samplevnf

Hi,

great!
I assume it is what Clive De Souza introduced in OPNFV summit #1, right?
we will be happy to play with these VNF approximations representative from the 
traffic in Functest (it was already identified as a possible task for Danube).
We already had some discussions on that some months ago but it seems that there 
were also some reorganization on your side.

I assume it should be relatively easy to integrate especially with the VNF 
abstraction we are introducing in Danube.
Let's consider this for E release.

I added Kumar in copy, his internship deals with the creation of a catalogue 
for Open Source VNFs...

/Morgan

_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites 
ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez 
le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les 
messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute 
responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used 
or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfvdocs] Feedback wanted on docs.opnfv.org

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Sofia,

No immediate feedback on the structure, but the looks of the document.

Assuming that the current color theme is also meant for the final release of 
the documentation, I would like to ask if it is possible to choose a different 
color for the links (and potentially the text itself)? In the current color 
theme, it is quite hard to find the reddish links in the grey text. Yes, 
partially color blind person here. :)

Best regards
Georg

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Sofia Wallin
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 5:05 PM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV (opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org) 

Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfvdocs] Feedback wanted on docs.opnfv.org

Hi all,
As communicated the docs project has the intention to divide the documentation 
into three different areas Release documentation, Test documentation and 
Development documentation [1].
I'm happy to see that we have received feedback around this and we want to 
broaden the discussion to agree on the best approach.
One suggestion that has been brought up is to divide the documentation into two 
areas, User documentation and Development documentation [2].

Please share your views and feedback to make sure that we together make 
docs.opnfv.org as useful as possible to those 
consuming our documentation!

Let me know what you think!

Thanks,
Sofia

[1]
Release documentation
Documentation aimed for OPNFV releases such as overview, installation guides, 
user guides, configuration guides.

Test documentation
To promote well-structured and well-written documentation

Development documentation
Project specific documentation such as design documentation, project overview 
or requirement documentation etc.

[2]
User documentation
Documentation aimed for OPNFV releases such as overview, installation guides, 
user guides, configuration guides including test documentation.

Development documentation
Project specific documentation such as design documentation, project overview 
or requirement documentation


___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [netready] OPNFV Hackfest Paris

[Georg Kunz]

Hi Prakash,

You have a good point. We should revisit the L3VPN use cases and evaluate if 
the gaps identified there can be solved by Gluon.

BTW: Are you planning to attend the plugfest/hackfest?

Best regards
Georg

From: Prakash Ramchandran [mailto:prakash.ramchand...@huawei.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:57 PM
To: Georg Kunz ; HU, BIN (bh5...@att.com) 
; Tim Irnich ; Nikolas Hermanns 
; gergely.csat...@nokia.com; jlin...@cisco.com; 
Ahmed Elbornou (amaged) (ama...@cisco.com) ; 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; thomas.hamble...@nokia.com
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss][netready] OPNFV Hackfest Paris

George,

Following your drive to add vSwitch HA and other use cases encouraged to find 
if  Gluon L3VPN use case is addressed before I can look at Edge Cloud.

If I missed any review on L3VPN point to me and will follow up.

 If not yet, this  time we can move 
NETREADY-7
  that to Release-E as potential candidate which points to 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudlet

Thanks
Prakash


Prakash Ramchandran
[logo_huawei] R&D USA
FutureWei Technologies, Inc
Email: prakash.ramchand...@huawei.com
Work:  +1 (408) 330-5489
Mobile: +1 (408) 406-5810
2330 Central Expy, Santa Clara, CA 95050, USA






From: Georg Kunz [mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 8:45 AM
To: HU, BIN (bh5...@att.com); Tim Irnich; Nikolas 
Hermanns; gergely.csat...@nokia.com; Prakash 
Ramchandran; jlin...@cisco.com; Ahmed Elbornou 
(amaged) (ama...@cisco.com); 
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; 
thomas.hamble...@nokia.com
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss][netready] OPNFV Hackfest Paris

Hi all,

As promised in the last NetReady meeting, I would like to start a discussion 
about potential topics for the upcoming plugfest and hackfest and bounce them 
with the team.

The plugfest / hackfest will take place in Paris (France) April 24 - 28.

Potential hackfest agenda items for the NetReady team:

* Evolution of the Gluon integration

o   Creation and integration of other protons (APIs)

?  SFC

?  layer-2 networking

?  "exotic networking use case" showcasing Gluon's flexibility

o   Maintenance of existing scenario

o   Extension of Gluon scenario to other installers

* Potential new use cases

o   Container networking

o   Edge cloud networking

o   Information centric networking

o   ...

This is just a starting point. Your feedback is very welcome. Let's try to 
jointly build a good agenda.

Best regards
Georg
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [project proposal] samplevnf

[morgan.richomme]

Hi,

great!
I assume it is what Clive De Souza introduced in OPNFV summit #1, right?
we will be happy to play with these VNF approximations representative
from the traffic in Functest (it was already identified as a possible
task for Danube).
We already had some discussions on that some months ago but it seems
that there were also some reorganization on your side.

I assume it should be relatively easy to integrate especially with the
VNF abstraction we are introducing in Danube.
Let's consider this for E release.

I added Kumar in copy, his internship deals with the creation of a
catalogue for Open Source VNFs...

/Morgan

_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [project proposal] samplevnf

[S, Deepak]

Hello OPNFV TSC and OPNFV community,



We would like to propose the "samplevnf" project for OPNFV and request your 
review.

Please find the details of the proposed project at 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Proposal%3A+samplevnf  .



Thanks and Best Regards,

Brian J Skerry & Deepak S






___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

[Nikolas Hermanns]

Hey David,

Here are the requested info for SDNVPN:
Enabling testing did happen already in earlier releases but we have added some 
more test cases this release. It is not completely applicable for us since we 
enable the test cases in the sdnvpn repo which will be run by functest.
Enabling testing for your project in the Functest repo:

-  Enable floating IP and router assoc test: 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/28903/

-  Re-enable the tests for bgpvpn scenario wich use floating ips: 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/28841/1
Test case implementation in your project repo:

-  This is not yet merged but will be merged soon: 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/29287/1

-  Implement testcase 3: Quagga-ODL integration: 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/28835/16
Please indicate whether the scenarios with which your project is integrated are 
visible on the Functest dashboard:
Yes it is visible.
Preliminary Documentation Requirement
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/29295/

BR Nikolas

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of David McBride
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 9:30 PM
To: opnfv-project-le...@lists.opnfv.org; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][danube] MS6 compliance assessment

Team,

I'd like to request that the PTLs for projects participating in Danube respond 
to the following questions, designed to assess compliance with MS6.
Feature Projects
1.Please provide a list of commits for the following:
a. Enabling testing for your project in the Functest repo (or other test 
framework repo if you are not using functest)
b.Test case implementation in your project repo.
2.Please indicate whether the scenarios with which your project is 
integrated are visible on the Functest dashboard.  If not, why?
Test Framework Projects
1.Please provide a list of commits for your self-validation tests.
Preliminary Documentation Requirement
1.Please provide a link to the preliminary documentation for your project.


Let me know if you have any questions.

David

--
David McBride
Release Manager, OPNFV
Mobile: +1.805.276.8018
Email/Google Talk: 
dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
Skype: davidjmcbride1
IRC: dmcbride
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [qtip] Agenda for weekly meeting 2017-02-27

[Yujun Zhang (ZTE)]

https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/qtip-meetings-2017-02-27

*# QTIP project weekly meeting on 2017-02-27*


   - time: UTC0730


   - irc://#opnfv-qtip@freenode


   - index: https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/qtip-meetings


*## Action followup*


   - [done] akhilbatra to organize a discussion on qtip-api requirement and
   send for review


   - [done] Julien-zte investigate docker build job


*## Topics*


   - sprint QTIP-D7 status update:
   https://jira.opnfv.org/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?rapidView=135&projectKey=QTIP


   - Danube release target update: https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/qtip-danube


   - CFP OPNFV Summit Beijing


   -
   http://events.linuxfoundation.org/events/opnfv-summit/program/cfp-details


   - https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/qtip-opnfv-summit-beijing


*## Recurring*


   - active sprint followup
   https://jira.opnfv.org/secure/RapidBoard.jspa?projectKey=QTIP&rapidView=135


   - CI status https://build.opnfv.org/ci/view/qtip/


   - new tasks in JIRA https://jira.opnfv.org/issues/?filter=11198


*## AOB*


   - 

-- 
Yujun Zhang
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss