Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] ONS planning of OPNFV sessions?

[Dave Neary]

Hi Ray,

I also identified 8 (a few days ago) topics which had been submitted to
the plenary sessions, which should be considered for an OPNFV track if
they are not accepted. That was the main point of the email - I think a
lot of topics were not submitted twice (at least, I did not do that for
my proposal).

Thanks,
Dave.

On 03/02/2018 12:24 PM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> Hi Dave, 
> 
> Thanks for your patience.  The programming committee members (TAC
> representatives from each project plus Phil/me) just graded the plenary
> session proposals, so we hope to announce them next week.
> 
> As for the OPNFV breakouts, I see 9 topics so far.  I believe
> Tim/Wenjing/you/me (this as pretty much the core group that was
> discussing the breakout) will all be at the Open Source Leadership
> Summit next week.  May we can find some time to continue the discussion
> in person and report out to the mailing list?
> 
> Ray
> 
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:01 AM, Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com
> <mailto:dne...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> It seems like we're in a holding pattern for scheduling OPNFV content
> for ONS because there are several potentially interesting topics which
> are still under consideration for a plenary.
> 
> When can we expect the plenary sessions to be announced so that we can
> then schedule the OPNFV break-out?
> 
> What will the process be fore scheduling break-outs? I volunteered to
> help, but have not heard anything since. Is someone co-ordinating the
> content curation?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> --
> Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> Ph: +1-978-399-2182 <tel:%2B1-978-399-2182> / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
> <tel:%2B1-978-799-3338>
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> <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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] ONS planning of OPNFV sessions?

[Dave Neary]

Hi all,

It seems like we're in a holding pattern for scheduling OPNFV content
for ONS because there are several potentially interesting topics which
are still under consideration for a plenary.

When can we expect the plenary sessions to be announced so that we can
then schedule the OPNFV break-out?

What will the process be fore scheduling break-outs? I volunteered to
help, but have not heard anything since. Is someone co-ordinating the
content curation?

Thanks,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer

[Dave Neary]

The last of the originals! Thanks for your labour's during the days when we 
were not all in agreement, I appreciated the efforts to reach consensus.

It was an honour to work on this project with you, Hongbo, and Chris.

Thanks,
Dave.

- Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Georg
> 
> I would like to take the same step to reassign as a committer to Dovetail. 
> 
> I recall the discussion we had back in the PlugFest in Orange last year to 
> remain as a committer in order to see through the first release of Dovetail 
> and OVP. Now with that goal successfully accomplished, I'm happy to step away 
> from the committer role. Thanks everyone for your support in the past. It's 
> great to see a diverse project team taking it forward. 
> 
> Regards
> Wenjing
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Georg Kunz
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:06 PM
> To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> First of all, thank you very much for your contributions to the project and 
> the first release of OVP.
> 
> According to [1], it suffices to send an email to the project (done). I will 
> forward your email to the TSC mailing list and update the INFO.yml file 
> correspondingly. 
> 
> [1] https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Committer+Removal
> 
> Best regards
> Georg
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech- 
> > discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> > Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 8:40 PM
> > To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Resigning as a committer
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I have said for several months that it was my intention to resign as a 
> > committer of Dovetail after the initial launch of the CVP. Vendor 
> > diversity of the committers is something that's important to me, and 
> > since Zenghui Shi has joined the Dovetail committer team, I want to 
> > ensure I am practicing what I preach.
> > 
> > Therefore, I would like to resign as a committer of Dovetail, 
> > effective immediately.
> > 
> > Do I need to do anything else (like submit a patch to the committer 
> > list in
> > Gerrit) or does this email suffice?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Dave.
> > 
> > --
> > 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
> > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] For the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday

[Dave Neary]

[Note post TSC call: this is the email I had written and found in my
Drafts folder after the TSC call - so I had not sent it - DN]

Thank you for putting this together, Ray!

A few comments: Your wiki stats look off - I would expect to see many
more people in the list (of course the first thing I did out of vanity
was look for myself, and I have definitely made a number of wiki edits
and comments, but I am not in the list).

We have so far discussed erring on the side of inclusion, so I am
curious about your setting a bar at 50 or 100 contributions. It might
make sense to have a minimum number for some of the lower impact
activities like Gerrit reviews, but for others like patch submission, a
lower bound of 1 might make more sense. For wiki edits 5 or 10 seems
reasonable. If using a composite metric, I would lean towards a lower
number (say, 20) rather than higher, to be more inclusive.

Have you considered being active on the mailing list as a potential
market of activity? Again the question of whether people who are active
on the list, but inactive elsewhere, can be considered active
contributors (I think they could) - there, perhaps 30 emails during the
year is a good level.

I would also be interested to hear if there are people who previously
had a vote as committers, who would not have a vote under this scheme,
or whether there is a big difference in the size of the
community/electorate with your proposed levels.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Dave.

On 02/12/2018 01:12 AM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> All, 
> 
> This is for the TSC composition discussion on Tuesday.  
> 
> As was discussed previously
> <http://meetbot.opnfv.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2018/opnfv-meeting.2018-01-25-14.01.html>,
> there was a consensus to look at a "union of contributions" across
> various tools in OPNFV including Git, Gerrit, JIRA, and Confluence.  For
> example, we talked about people making a total of 50 or 100
> contributions across all tools over a 12 month period as the constituent
> for the TSC election.
> 
> In the attached, you'll see the data point across the 4 tools in 2017. 
> In the last tab, you'll also find a comparison of "top 50 contributors"
> across the tools.  Although there are some exceptions, you'll see that
> active contributors are active across all 4 tools.  One of the concerns
> was that we want to be inclusive to recognize non-code contributions and
> you'll see a high number of non-code contributors in both Gerrit and Jira.
> 
> In terms of a threshold, 100 annual contributions seems like a good
> starting point.  As a point of reference, the following shows the number
> of people that made 100 or more contributions in each tool.  (Based on
> this, we'll have a minimum of 112 people eligible for the TSC election
> as we have 112 people that made 100 or more contributions to Gerrit alone)
> 
>   * Gerrit: 112
>   * Git: 30
>   * JIRA: 36
>   * Wiki: 4
> 
> If we go to 50 annual contributions, I don't necessarily think there'll
> be a significant increase in the pool and following is the breakdown.  
> 
>   * Gerrit: 137
>   * Git: 51
>   * JIRA: 62
>   * Wiki: 8
> 
> Please feel free to reply with any thoughts or feedback.  This will be
> discussed further during the TSC call.
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> _______
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] nomintion for the new dovetail PTL for Georg Kunz

[Dave Neary]

I also add my +1 - I missed the nomination thread.

Thank you,
Dave.

On 02/08/2018 08:20 PM, Tianhongbo wrote:
> Hi TSC:
> 
>  
> 
> According to the vote results, the Georg Kunz is the new dovetail PTL
> 
>  
> 
> Hongbo:+1
> 
> Lincoln:+1
> 
> Trevor:+1
> 
> Wenjing:+1
> 
> Fuqiao:+1
> 
> Wanglei:+1
> 
>  
> 
> For more details, please refer to the attachments
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
>  
> 
> hongbo
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Cross-Project Visibility

[Dave Neary]

I love the idea! Can we record these as webinars, 10-15 minute
presentations including a high level problem statement & project scope
description, and get them on the OPNFV YouTube channel too?

Thanks,
Dave.

On 01/26/2018 01:00 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
> Hello community,
> 
>  
> 
> At the Plugfest in Oregon, Emma Foley and Al Morton discussed a great
> idea to increase cross-project visibility in the community.
> 
>  
> 
> The idea is to have a regular session where different project teams
> would give a lightning update (5-10 minutes) to inform the rest of the
> community of how the project is progressing, and highlight any new
> features that could be of interest to other project teams/end users. It
> would be a good way to keep users informed and excited for the releases.
> This could facilitate the creation and utilization of common
> functionality, instead of duplication of effort, as well as increase
> collaboration between projects.
> 
>  
> 
> PTL or any delegate of a project can give this lightning update.
> 
>  
> 
> The lightning update could be once a month, or whenever a project is
> ready to present. We can allocate time slots on weekly technical
> discussions on Thursdays for this lightning talk of projects.
> 
>  
> 
> Please share your feedback regarding the proposal of lighting update of
> projects to increase cross-project visibility and collaboration.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Bin
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Update on OPNFV constituency definition (Community call minutes)

[Dave Neary]

Hi all,

We had a great call earlier with Ray, Bin, myself, and Frank Brockners
in particular being very active in discussing how we decide whether
people are eligible to run for the OPNFV TSC and vote in the elections.
I took the action to report back, and get more input into the discussion.

First, a summary of what has been more or less agreed:

* Term: 1 year term.
* Size: Around 20
* Cap per company: max 2 or 3 per organiztion (to be decided, based on
size of TSC)

The discussion today was primarily about eligibility to run and vote (we
have agreed that these will be the same thing).

Ray provided the background, along with a summary of what we have agreed
above and some principles we use to guide the process:

* We want to ensure that active contributors to the project are included
* We want to ensure operator representation in the community, and (in
general) we value non-code contributions
* We aim for more inclusivity - when there is a trade-off between being
more inclusive vs more correct, we will err on the side of inclusivity.
* Whatever system we settle on should be simple and (to the extent
possible) automated


Those in the discussion agreed that an approach with mostly automated
data gathering, and some fine-tuning from PTL input and the Linux
Foundation, would be best.

We had an extended discussion on what types of activity to measure and
include. Frank suggested that we might be making our lives difficult for
little gain if we try to gather data from many data sources - it may be
that looking at Git submissions and Gerrit reviews will catch all the
people we should include, even if it does not cover all of the
activities we value (that is, while wiki edits are valued contributions,
how many people are making significant wiki or docs contributions but
not doing anything in Gerrit?). He suggested a data driven approach
where we identify the people who are active in multiple forums, and then
evaluate who would be missing from one list, but present in another. I
suggested perhaps using a weighted average of multiple data points to
come up with a single figure that covers multiple activities.

Ray agreed to get data from Git, Gerrit, Jira, and the Confluence wiki
to feed this discussion.

We also had a side discussion about mailing list activity, IRC as
potential data sources. The general feeling is that while we could take
these as data sources, it might not be easy or useful to do so.

I brought up that OPNFV meet-ups, Ambassadors, and operator activity in
defining use-cases in the wiki, would not be captured if we looked only
at git/gerrit. Frank also mentioned that upstream code contributions,
something we value highly, would not show up. I suggested enlisting
Brandon to identify people who organize meet-ups, OSN Days, and OPNFV
related meet-ups around the world, as well as contributors who provide
valuable contributions around marketing activities (white papers, demos,
etc).

We briefly discussed how far back from elections we would take for
contributions - one year s the obvious candidate, I suggested a little
more (say, 18 months before election date) would include some people
whose opinion we should care about. TBD.

Next steps: As we were missing some key voices on the call, we will have
another Thursday community call in 2 weeks to review Ray's findings, and
discuss further which activities we want to include in the automated
list of constituents.

Thanks,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [doctor] [apex] Integrate project Vitrage in Apex

[Dave Neary]

Hi Dong Wnejuan,

Since there are Vitrage packages in RDO already, the gap is updating
TripleO to deploy and configure it post installation.

Would you be interested in doing this work? There are many tasks on the
Apex roadmap, and Tim does not have the bandwidth to do them all.

Thank you!
Dave.

On 12/18/2017 08:29 PM, dong.wenj...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> 
> Hi Tim Rozet,
> 
> I noticed that you are the assignee for task `integrate project Vitrage
> in Apex`[1].
> 
> May I ask what's the progress? Do you have a plan to implement it in F
> release? Thanks~
> 
> 
> [1]https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/APEX-213
> 
> 
> BR,
> 
> dwj
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] FW: [dovetail] Weekly Meeting Agenda - 11/17

[Dave Neary]

Hi Wenjing, Eddie,

Who is managing the CVP mailing list? I looked for it on
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo but it is not listed, and I
don't know how to get on it.

Thank you,
Dave.


On 11/16/2017 04:48 PM, Wenjing Chu wrote:
> 
> *From: *Edward Abou Arrage (Eddie Arrage, Silicon Valley NFV Competency
> Center)
> *To: *cvp<c...@opnfv.org <mailto:c...@opnfv.org>>
> *Cc: *Wenjing Chu<wenjing@huawei.com
> <mailto:wenjing@huawei.com>>;xudan (N)<xuda...@huawei.com
> <mailto:xuda...@huawei.com>>
> *Subject: *[dovetail] Weekly Meeting Agenda - 11/17
> *Time: *2017-11-16 11:49:07
> 
> Hello Dovetail Community,
> 
> Here is the proposed agenda for the meeting this week. We will not be
> having a meeting next week with the Thanksgiving holiday (Nov 24^th ).
> Since there might only be one other week between now and the plugfest,
> planning for the event is the most important topic. We do need to also
> consider CVP/Dovetail release issues, as another key topic.
> 
> I’m sending this on the CVP alias because I’m still having email woes.
> Can someone forward this on the tech-discuss email? I’d appreciate it.
> 
> *Meeting Time: 14:00-15:00 UTC, 6:00-7:00 PST*
> 
>   * Review post-beta issues – *(10 min)*
>   o HA considerations from Wind River - Stephen/Xudan
>   * Release plan – *(20 min)*
>   o Packaging and versioning - review a few slides (action from last
> week)
>   o Release notes & CVP portal homepage
>   * Future planning *(20 min)*
>   o Plugfest content discussion (action from last week) - tutorial
> and review of 1st release planned
>   + Decide and prepare content for roadmap discussion - review a
> few slides to kick-start (below are ideas)
>   # HA extensions, NFVi forwarding performance, VIM
> vulnerability scanning, VNF onboarding
>   + Hands-on portion needs discussion (below are just ideas): 
>   # Run Dovetail against Euphrates (including containerized
> version)
>   # Execute open-source/OPNFV traffic generators against OVS 
>   # Setup and run vulnerability scanning tools against VIM
> elements
>   # Execute new HA test-cases 
>   * Documentation – *(5 min)*
>   o User guide improvements - DOVETAIL-553
> <https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/DOVETAIL-553>, Gerrit
> <https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/47007/>
> 
> Past meeting minutes <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Dovetail>
> 
> All the best,
> Eddie
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] [opnfv-project-leads] [release][euphrates] proposal to eliminate one of the two point releases for Euphrates

[Dave Neary]

+1

Dave.

On 10/05/2017 05:04 AM, Ulrich Kleber wrote:
> +1
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*opnfv-project-leads-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> [mailto:opnfv-project-leads-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
> *David McBride
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 04 October, 2017 20:44
> *To:* TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
> *Cc:* opnfv-project-leads; TSC OPNFV; Raymond Paik; Tapio Tallgren
> *Subject:* [opnfv-project-leads] [release][euphrates] proposal to
> eliminate one of the two point releases for Euphrates
> 
>  
> 
> Team,
> 
>  
> 
> Please respond to this mail with (+1, 0, -1) and your thoughts,
> suggestions, or alternatives.  
> 
>  
> 
> During the TSC call on Tues, Oct 3, the TSC agreed to slip the initial
> Euphrates release (5.0) to October 20.  In addition, I also proposed
> eliminating one of the two point releases (5.1, 5.2) planned for
> Euphrates.  The reasoning was as follows:
> 
>  1. Moving the 5.0 release to Oct 20 places that release just 3 weeks
> before the planned release of 5.1 (Nov 10).
>  2. Slipping 5.1 and 5.2 could have negative consequences for the OPNFV
> "F" release, as happened with Euphrates when we decided to slip
> Danube 3.0.
> 
> Therefore, the proposal is to eliminate the planned release on Nov 10,
> so that there would just be one point release on Dec 15.  
> 
>  
> 
> The proposal is described in more detail in the slide deck that I
> presented during the TSC meeting
> <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/TSC#TSC-October3,2017> (see
> link labeled "euphrates contingency.pptx" under the heading "Euphrates
> update").
> 
>  
> 
> David
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> *David McBride*
> 
> Release Manager, OPNFV
> 
> Mobile: +1.805.276.8018 <tel:%2B1.805.276.8018>
> 
> Email/Google Talk: dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org
> <mailto:dmcbr...@linuxfoundation.org>
> 
> Skype: davidjmcbride1
> 
> IRC: dmcbride
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tsc mailing list
> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tsc
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [announce] 2018 OPNFV release names

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

On 09/28/2017 02:11 PM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> I brought this up during the TSC call, but my original proposal was to
> limit F-release to Australia/Oceania and G-release to Africa and it was
> vetoed (Dave, if you recall you were one of the people who was against
> this).

True - there's a difference between (say) including Ganges in the list
of G rivers as a major international river, or limiting continents to
2-3 choices, and having rivers that end up being inelligible because
they're too small, or having a 2nd choice from a continent we've already
had when we are looking to be inclusive.I'm happy not to be completely
strict about continents, but at the same time to limit the choices.

More appropriate for the criteria you mention below - I will provide
input when the time comes for that process.

> Anyhow, a suggestion was made in the TSC to do a re-vote on F-release
> name rather than go with the 2nd most popular choice from the original
> poll.  Brandon and I went through the rest of the candidates in the wiki
> <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Future+release+name+candidates>
> and did a quick check on availability of photos (e.g. on Google,
> Shutterstock, Istock, etc.) . In addition to Fenix, Flyers, Feliciano,
> and Fundacion were also problematic as noted on the wiki page.  I can
> create another poll with the remaining 9 rivers and run it for another week.
> 
> Creating & publishing a criteria makes sense and that's something we can
> do before we do another release naming poll next year.  I'm sure this
> will involve input from both technical and marketing community members...

Thank you for considering the community feedback on this, Ray!

Regards,
Dave.
-- 
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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [announce] 2018 OPNFV release names

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

On 09/25/2017 05:24 PM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> Thanks for voting on the release naming poll.  
> 
> First, for G-release the winner is Gambia (the first African river for
> OPNFV).  
> 
> For the F-release, the top vote getter was Fenix in Argentina.  However,
> after some research it looks this is a tributary of another river
> (Deseado <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseado_River>), and I wasn't
> able to find photos of Fenix River on the web (or even find it on Google
> Maps).  
> 
> I talked to LF marketing colleagues as we've been using river images for
> release marketing, and they do have concerns about going with a river
> that is not well known.  The second choice was Fraser
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_River> in Canada (the longest
> river in British Columbia) and I suggest going with Fraser as the
> F-release name.  Although Fenix sounds cool, I think it's problematic if
> you can't find it on a map.

Honestly I'm disappointed that we added so many options to the poll
after a proposal to have an Australasian river. I do think we should
have a filter in which rivers that are candidates are acceptable if they
win. Agreed on criteria should be applied to the options (size,
geographical location, geographical significance, availability of pretty
pictures for marketing, whatever the criteria are, they should be
objective and public).

Thanks,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [announce] F & G releases naming

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

These are great proposals!

On 08/31/2017 11:48 PM, Wenjing Chu wrote:
> It’s not like Australia is where one finds a lot of rivers either. I’d
> propose we expand that to Oceania, to include New Zealand, Papua New
> Guinea and pacific islands.
> 
> -The Fly River in Papua New Guinea for F

I agree - I would add Fox River in New Zealand as a 2nd option

> -Gambia for G in Africa

It would be a shame not to have the Ganges as an option for G, even if
it's not in Africa, although I also like Gambia.

In terms of themes, the Fly river gives us a nice opportunity to mix an
open source theme and a political message - "Sustainable Development" -
the deforestation of Papua New Guinea on the banks of the Fly is a
tragedy for the planet.

Thanks,
Dave.

> *From:*opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Raymond Paik
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 31, 2017 8:29 PM
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [announce] F & G releases naming
> 
>  
> 
> All, 
> 
>  
> 
> As was discussed in a TSC call a few weeks ago, I'd like to kickoff the
> naming process for both OPNFV releases in 2018 (i.e. F & G releases). 
> We'll  follow the tradition of naming our release after rivers and
> rotate through different continents.
> 
>  
> 
> So far, we have not had release names for rivers in Africa, Australia,
> and South America (options for Antarctica as you can imagine are pretty
> limited).  My proposal is to start with Australia for the F-release and
> then move to Africa for the G-release (Dave Neary already suggested that
> there are more options for G in Africa :-))
> 
>  
> 
> I created a wiki page
> <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/SWREL/Future+release+name+candidates> for 
> community
> suggestions and will leave this open for a few weeks, so I encourage
> everyone to add your ideas for F & G release names in respective
> tables.  I'll plan on starting the voting on release names during the
> week of September 18th.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
>  
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> _______
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [OPNFV] Draft support for presentation to TSC

[Dave Neary]

Hi Morgan,

Coming back to this old thread after the TSC discussion today.

My feeling is that the argument that we have to do stress testing on the
N-1 release because the installers are not available early in the cycle
is an argument for changing the release process (or converting it to a
continuous delivery model where the tip of master is always more or less
releasable).

Based on the conversation earlier, I think that we should not be
attempting to backport fixes at all in OPNFV if we can avoid it - if
operators and vendors want to fix issues that we have identified and
fixed in the tip of master, then the back-porting is their job, not
OPNFV's - and I do not think that this is a sufficient reason to break
the "gold standard" of no fork, upstream first which has been the OPNFV
mantra since its creation.

If we can get towards a rolling release of tip-of-master in OPNFV, I
think that this is what provides the greatest value to feature and
testing projects, operators, and vendors. Features will be tested as
integrated upstream, operators should get a higher cadence for new
features, and in general we will not be expending extra effort in a
community project back-porting fixes or features to N-1, or maintaining
patches against N-1 to fix resiliency issues.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 06/23/2017 02:39 AM, morgan.richo...@orange.com wrote:
> Hi
> 
> as discussed yesterday during the weekly meeting, I prepared a slide
> deck for the discussion with the TSC (I tried to summarize our
> discussion and hope it reflects the wiki pages we created on the topic).
> 
> Feel free to comment/complete/criticize/modify
> @Gabriel: would you be OK to present the beginning? (stress tests
> created for Danube + wiki page and email thread)
> 
> I already booked a slot for the meeting next week
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/TSC
> the agenda looks already pretty busy not sure we will have time, we will
> see
> 
> /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
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] [release][announce] RESPONSE REQUIRED / proposed change to release date for Danube 3.0

[Dave Neary]

+1
- Stuart Mackie  wrote:
> +1
> 
> Stuart
> -914 886 2534
> 
> From:  on behalf of David McBride 
> 
> Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 at 2:11 PM
> To: TSC OPNFV 
> Cc: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
> Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [release][announce] RESPONSE REQUIRED / 
> proposed change to release date for Danube 3.0
> 
> TSC,
> 
> After examining status and considering various alternatives, Ray and I have 
> agreed to propose July 14 as the new release date for Danube 3.  We believe 
> that this will give project and installer teams time to overcome current 
> issues, as well as allowing us to avoid the 4th of July holiday in the U.S., 
> when many community members will be away on vacation.
> 
> Assuming that the TSC approves this change, then I would suggest the 
> following schedule:
> · July 12 - complete testing
> · July 13 - finish document updates / update JIRA
> · July 14 - tag repos and release
> · Week of July 17 - download page goes live
> TSC members, please respond to this email with your vote on the following by 
> EOD PT June 30:
> 
> Does the TSC approve moving the Danube 3.0 release date to July 14th? (+1, 0, 
> -1)
> 
> 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] [opnfv-tsc] TSC vote requested for security fix

[Dave Neary]

+1 to fixing security issues. I have no preference on times.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 06/21/2017 07:07 AM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> OPNFV TSC Members:
> 
> Sorry for the short notice, but earlier today the Linux Foundation IT
> team has been made aware of a high priority security issue
> (see https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/stackguard) and
> need to apply package errata and perform systems reboot as soon as
> possible.  We tentatively scheduled 1-hour window on June 24th @01:00 -
> 02:00 UTC for this work, but if the TSC agrees, we'd like fix this sooner.  
> 
> I realize the timing is not ideal as people are working on Danube 3.0,
> but two options I'd like to propose are 22:00 - 23:00 UTC on June 21st
> or June 22nd.  
> 
> Could I ask the TSC members to send your votes on the following as soon
> as possible?
> 
>   * Do you approve an earlier security fix window? (Y/N)
>   * If you answered Y above, are you OK with June 21st, June 22nd, or
> are you OK with either?
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tsc mailing list
> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tsc
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] [dovetail] TSC and DoveTail meeting to discuss scope and needs for CVP testing

[Dave Neary]

Hi Tim,

On 06/20/2017 09:02 PM, Tim Irnich wrote:
>> I would like to see us document some of the NFV related requirements
>> which are common across all RFCs from telcos, and which are available in all
>> viable VIM products. 
> 
> This is exactly the intention of the proposal, under the side constraint
> of drawing from already existing tests. The question to the TSC was if
> this is enough for an initial release. I think your answer is no.

On the contrary - the initial release scope is fine, my comment was on
the "future plans" piece.

Thanks,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] [dovetail] TSC and DoveTail meeting to discuss scope and needs for CVP testing

[Dave Neary]

Hi Tim,

On 06/13/2017 05:28 PM, Tim Irnich wrote:
> In addition the Dovetail team walked through the list of OPNFV feature
> projects and concluded that currently no other projects than the already
> included ones are advanced enough for compliance verification, due to
> varying reasons (e.g. depending on midstream patches, etc.).
> 
> To provide visibility into what would be coming next, an initial list of
> work items for Euphrates was created:
> 
>   * Stress testing
>   * Include Doctor (optional/mandatory is tbd)
>   * Include Models (the OPNFV project) test cases (launch a sample
> multi-VM VNF)
>   o We need to check these against the test case requirements
>   * Incorporate more OPNFV feature projects (e.g. SFC etc.)

Again, my apologies for my conflict on Tuesday during the Dovetail team
meeting. Thank you for the notes and conclusions, Tim.

I have some issues with some of these proposed test areas, for a few
reasons. The first is that there are several areas where it is unclear
if there is critical mass adoption from Doctor, Models, to merit
inclusion in Dovetail. The second is the continued focus on project
tests and feature projects, rather than basic NFVI and VIM features for
which we do not yet have tests.

I would like to see us document some of the NFV related requirements
which are common across all RFCs from telcos, and which are available in
all viable VIM products. I see value in then identifying those areas
where we do not have tests, and implementing functional tests for these
requirements.

The focus on new features and feature projects misses all of the NFV
related features between RefStack (low bar, API tests) and current
development (too new to include in Dovetail). It seems like there is a
middle ground.

Thanks,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Vote for the new Danube 3.0 release date

[Dave Neary]

+1

Dave.

On 06/07/2017 09:04 PM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> TSC members, 
> 
> Apologies for a little delay on this.  
> 
> As David communicated
> <https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tsc/2017-June/003516.html>
> yesterday, he is recommending postponing the Danube 3.0 release date to
> June 23rd (2-week delay) as community members experienced technical
> issues over the weekend.
> 
> I'd like to start an email vote among the TSC members on the following:
> 
> "Does the TSC approve changing the Danube 3.0 release date to June 23,
> 2017?  (+1, 0, -1)"
> 
> Could you send me your vote by 6pm Pacific Time on June 8th (Thursday)?
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tsc mailing list
> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tsc
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] proposal: information sharing with OpenStack RefStack and Interop people

[Dave Neary]

I am all in favour. It may also make sense to connect with the ETSI TST
group - perhaps in a separate meeting - to get their point of view too.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 05/18/2017 07:04 PM, Cooper, Trevor wrote:
> +1
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Georg Kunz [mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 2:38 PM
> To: Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; 
> Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Cc: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; z...@redhat.com; Fu Qiao 
> <fuq...@chinamobile.com>; Leo Wang <grakiss...@hotmail.com>; 'Lincoln Lavoie' 
> <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; Jose Lausuch <jose.laus...@ericsson.com>
> Subject: [dovetail] proposal: information sharing with OpenStack RefStack and 
> Interop people
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> We are trying very hard to establish processes, guidelines and best practices 
> for running the OPNFV certification program - on our own and with guidance 
> from C I believe we can much better leverage existing knowledge and 
> experience from related communities. In this context, I'd like to make a 
> proposal.
> 
> As mentioned during last week's call, Jose and I had very insightful 
> conversations with the relevant folks from the OpenStack certification 
> domain: Catherine Diep (RefStack PTL), Egle Sigler (co-chair Interop working 
> group) and Mark Voelker (co-chair Interop working group). We have developed a 
> good relationship with them and they are willing and interested in sharing 
> their experience in running the OpenStack certification / interop program 
> with us.
> 
> My proposal: I'd like to invite the aforementioned persons to one or two of 
> our project meetings and let them share their experience, best practices and 
> guidelines with us. Based on these insights, we can then define, adapt and 
> optimize our own processes to suite our needs. The latter is important - I 
> don't think we can simply adopt their existing processes, but we should learn 
> about why existing processes in the OpenStack domain have evolved to their 
> current form. The OpenStack certification program was started in 2013 and 
> officially launched in 2015 - so there was serious effort and time involved. 
> We should try to build upon existing knowledge without having to go through 
> the same learning phase as the OpenStack folks.
> 
> This requires some thoughtful timing, of course: In the very short term 
> future, we need to focus on finalizing the first iteration of the OPNFV 
> certification program. My proposal is not intending to undermine this. On the 
> contrary. However, the earlier we get additional insight, the better we can 
> define our own processes.
> 
> I don't want to put this on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting (for obvious 
> reasons), but instead discuss this by email.
> 
> @Wenjing / Hongbo: can we dedicate a future meeting to such a sharing session 
> with the OpenStack folks?
> 
> Best regards
> Georg
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:54 PM
>> To: Cooper, Trevor <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; Wenjing Chu
>> <wenjing@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> Cc: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; z...@redhat.com; Fu
>> Qiao <fuq...@chinamobile.com>; Leo Wang <grakiss...@hotmail.com>;
>> 'Lincoln Lavoie' <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; Georg Kunz
>> <georg.k...@ericsson.com>
>> Subject: Re: [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda for May 19
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> My suspicion is that the entire meeting will be taken up with agenda items 2
>> and 3 from Wenjing.
>>
>> We need alignment around the test areas, and test case review. We also
>> need to clarify what, if anything, we need to get in terms of guidance from
>> C I suggest inverting these agenda items, because the second will take
>> less time than the first.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave.
>> On 05/18/2017 02:38 PM, Cooper, Trevor wrote:
>>> I would like to propose some topics ... a few minutes for each should be
>>> fine to decide if we can defer or need a decision
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -  H/w resources for Dovetail
>>>
>>> -  Dovetail artifact versions and release schemes
>>>
>>> -  Test catalog domains relevant to compliance
>>>
>>> -  Stability test criteria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> /Trevor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Wenjing Chu [mail

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda for May 19

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

My suspicion is that the entire meeting will be taken up with agenda
items 2 and 3 from Wenjing.

We need alignment around the test areas, and test case review. We also
need to clarify what, if anything, we need to get in terms of guidance
from C I suggest inverting these agenda items, because the second
will take less time than the first.

Thanks,
Dave.
On 05/18/2017 02:38 PM, Cooper, Trevor wrote:
> I would like to propose some topics … a few minutes for each should be
> fine to decide if we can defer or need a decision
> 
>  
> 
> -  H/w resources for Dovetail
> 
> -  Dovetail artifact versions and release schemes
> 
> -  Test catalog domains relevant to compliance
> 
> -  Stability test criteria
> 
>  
> 
> /Trevor
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Wenjing Chu [mailto:wenjing@huawei.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 17, 2017 4:14 PM
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Cc:* Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com>; Tianhongbo
> <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; Cooper, Trevor
> <trevor.coo...@intel.com>; z...@redhat.com; Fu Qiao
> <fuq...@chinamobile.com>; Leo Wang <grakiss...@hotmail.com>; 'Lincoln
> Lavoie' <lylav...@iol.unh.edu>; Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>
> *Subject:* [dovetail] Weekly meeting agenda for May 19
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Please comment if the following agenda makes sense:
> 
>  
> 
> 1.   Welcome new committers and where we need immediate new
> contribution and attention
> 
> 2.   Preparation for tsc review on 5/30
> 
> 3.   Ask – what we need to ask from c and board? How should we
> take on the administrative side of tasks. Also the Danube addendum for 5/22.
> 
> 4.   Naming convention of test cases
> 
> 5.   Vendor lab testing – needs volunteers to sign up beta testers
> 
> 6.   Tagging / releases, offline support
> 
> 7.   Design summit topics
> 
> 8.   Next week: can we still meet at the same time on 5/26 close to
> memorial day weekend in US?
> 
>  
> 
> We won’t have enough time to cover all the topics in the meeting to the
> full extent, but I’m hoping that we will have volunteers who can take on
> some of the tasks and make progress.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Wenjing
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [mano-wg] Weekly Wednesday : 14.00 UTC /7.00 PDT Meeting #31

[Dave Neary]

Hi Prakash,

On 05/16/2017 02:06 PM, Prakash Ramchandran wrote:
> Meeting Agenda: https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827111
> 
> 1.Agenda Bashing
> 
> 2. Release E  follow-ups on MANO projects plans and inputs from PTLs
> 
> 3. Discussions on Open Source SBC use case from MANO for Design and
> Deployment  for Dovetail

I'm curious what the overlap between an SBC use-case for MANO and
Dovetail. I believe at least today, MANO and VNFs are out of scope for
Dovetail. What is the objective of this discussion point?

Thanks,
Dave.

> 4. Events <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/EVNT> and planning MANO items
> and feedbacks
> 
> Openstack (Boston)
> <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/EVNT/OPNFV+at+OpenStack+Summit+-+Boston>
> - Reports & OPNFV(Beijing)
> <http://beijing%20design%20summit%20schedule/> -plans and OPNFV Meetup
> (WSO2) <https://www.meetup.com/OPNFV-Bay-Area-User-Group/> and APIs
> (ONOS/ONAP) <https://wiki.onap.org/display/DW/APIs>
> 
> 5. Continuing discussions on VNF On-boarding, Packaging  best practices
> for MANO rationalization over OPNFV
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Prakash
> 
>  
> 
> *Prakash Ramchandran*
> 
> logo_huawei* R USA*
> 
> *FutureWei Technologies, Inc*
> 
> Email:prakash.ramchand...@huawei.com <mailto:s.c...@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
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Standing down as a committer on DoveTail

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

In light of Chris's resignation and request, I would like to propose
that we bring our plans to evolve the project to the TSC sooner, rather
than later, and get TSC guidance on a number of key questions related to
Dovetail, which is not like other projects because of its relationship
to the CVP:

* Should we allow multiple committers from a single vendor?
* How should we handle the expansion of the committers during the
restructuring of the Dovetail project?

I do not believe that another project has considered, as we have
recently, an addition of many new committers to a project, nor is there
another project so directly related to a board committee. I think it
will be useful and necessary for us to get TSC guidance on any changes
to the project - and with Chris stepping down, I think we should get
this guidance before extending invitations to new committer candidates.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 05/01/2017 12:11 PM, Christopher Price wrote:
> Hi Hongbo,
> 
>  
> 
> I will be standing down as a committer on the Dovetail project.
> 
>  
> 
> When I established the project it was intended to reflect as fairly as
> possible a common set of voices from all member companies that had a
> stake in our project. 
> 
> I feel that the balance in the project is not ideal today, I certainly
> feel that my voice counts for little and is often ignored by the
> majority votes and I do not think I am able to provide value as a
> committer in the current structure.
> 
>  
> 
> I strongly urge you to approach the TSC for support in re-structuring
> DoveTail in as meritocratic manner as possible, committers contributing
> to the repo, with a structure that limits the votes for any single
> commercial interest on the project.  I believe this would be in the best
> interest of the project.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Expanding the scope of OpenRetriever(OR) Project as NGVS is merging into OR

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

I saw the scope of NGVS was primarily focussed on containers, but it
occurred to me that there is an opportunity to retune the project to
define instance scheduling requirements for OpenStack in general -
essentially, use the project as a vehicle for evolving the Nova scheduler.

Is this not the plan? If it is, the merger with OpenRetriever might not
help move towards that goal, as it creates an impression that this is
entirely container focussed.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 03/27/2017 09:58 AM, HU, BIN wrote:
> Adding opnfv-tsc mailing list too.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*jiaxuan [mailto:jiax...@chinamobile.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 27, 2017 6:37 AM
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Cc:* 'Amar Kapadia' <akapa...@aarnanetworks.com>; HU, BIN <bh5...@att.com>
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] Expanding the scope of OpenRetriever(OR)
> Project as NGVS is merging into OR
> 
>  
> 
> After a good talk with Nextgen VIM Scheduler (NGVS) project, we decide
> to expand the scope of OpenRetriever(OR) and let NGVS merge into OR.
> NGVS will be as a sub-project of OR.
> 
> TSC need community to revised the changes of OR’s scope for 2 weeks.
> Then bring to TSC for review and approval.
> 
>  
> 
> Scope:
> 
> OR focuses on how non-virtual-machine based VNF run in NFV. It includes
> container and unikernels. The target of this project is let VNF can run
> on any platform including OpenStack, Kubernetes, Mesos and so on. The
> project doesn’t cover the internal architecture of a VNF.
> 
>  
> 
> 1.  Add Kuryr and Magnum into installers
> 
>  
> 
> 2.  Container for NFV. The main function is to increase the performance
> of container and container platform.
> 
>  
> 
> 3.  Set up an environment which can support container and unikernel.
> 
>  
> 
> 4.  A new scheduler that can schedule a mix of all three types (virtual
> machine, container, unikernel) of instances.
> 
>  
> 
> 5.  Analyse the gap for OpenStack, Installer, Kubernetes, MANO.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Key work items include:
> 
> 1. Documentation:
> 
>  
> 
> 1) The requirement of OpenStack, Installer, Kubernetes, MANO
> 
>  
> 
> 2) The requirement of Nextgen VIM Scheduler.
> 
>  
> 
> 3) The user guide: Set up an environment which can support container
> and unikernels.
> 
>  
> 
> 2. Scripts : Common scripts to let container be integrated into OPNFV
> 
>  
> 
> 3. Testing:  Provide for Functest , Yardstick etc.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Committers and Contributors:   
> 
> Project Leader: Xuan Jia ( jiax...@chinamobile.com
> <mailto:jiax...@chinamobile.com>)
> 
> Committer:
> 
>  Csatari, Gergely ( gergely.csat...@nokia.com
> <mailto:gergely.csat...@nokia.com> ) 
> 
>  Lijun ( matthew.li...@huawei.com
> <mailto:matthew.li...@huawei.com> )
> 
>  Xuan Jia ( jiax...@chinamobile.com
> <mailto:jiax...@chinamobile.com> )
> 
>  Peng Yu ( yu.pen...@zte.com.cn <mailto:yu.pen...@zte.com.cn> )
> 
>  Wassim Haddad ( wassim.had...@ericsson.com
> <mailto:wassim.had...@ericsson.com> )
> 
>  Heikki Mahkonen ( heikki.mahko...@ericsson.com
> <mailto:heikki.mahko...@ericsson.com> )
> 
>  Amar Kapadia ( akapa...@aarnanetworks.com
> <mailto:akapa...@aarnanetworks.com> )
> 
>  Sriram Rupanagunta ( srupanagu...@gmail.com
> <mailto:srupanagu...@gmail.com> )
> 
> Contributors:
> 
>  Guo Ruijing ( ruijing@intel.com <mailto:ruijing@intel.com> )
> 
>  Srinivasa Addepalli (srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com
> <mailto:srinivasa.r.addepa...@intel.com> )
> 
>  Pradip Rawat (pradipkum...@biarca.com
> <mailto:pradipkum...@biarca.com> )
> 
>  Ganesh Kaila (gane...@biarca.com <mailto:gane...@biarca.com> )
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Planned deliverables:
> 
> 1. Documentation and User Guide
> 
>  
> 
> 2. Scripts.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Proposed Released Schedule:
> 
> 1. NGVS is completed by E-release
> 
>  
> 
> 2. Gap analysis and requirement documentation by E-release
> 
>  
> 
> 3. Integration scripts for container by E-release
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Initial proposal:
> 
> NGVS Proposal
> (https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=10290307 )
> 
> OpenRetriver Proposal
> (https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Proposals+OpenRetriever )
> 
>  
> 
> If you have any question ,please follow this email. Thanks
> 
>  
> 
> Xuan Jia
> 
> Mobile: (+86) 13811000575
> 
> E-mail: jiax...@chinamobile.com <mailto:jiax...@chinamobile.com>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tsc mailing list
> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tsc
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Dovetail weekly meeting minutes

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

I also updated the test requirements to integrate suggestions, and moved
things around to make it clear what we have agreed and what are
suggestions. I also added our feedback to suggestions from last week.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 03/20/2017 07:10 PM, Wenjing Chu wrote:
>  
> 
> I took an action item last Friday to draft a worksheet (questionnaire)
> for the purpose of reviewing test areas/test cases. It can be found
> here: https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=10291560
> 
>  
> 
> Please you are invited to review and give feedbacks. We’ll try to review
> it this week.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Wenjing
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Wenjing Chu
> *Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 1:44 PM
> *To:* 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV' <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Dovetail weekly meeting minutes
> 
>  
> 
> Here is last week’s meeting minutes:
> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2017/opnfv-meeting.2017-03-17-13.00.log.html
> 
>  
> 
> We covered all the items in the agenda, except #5. And in addition, we
> also briefly touched upon the test strategy document draft 
> *http://artifacts.opnfv.org/dovetail/review/30811/testing_user_teststrategy/index.html*
> 
> Please provide feedback/comment.
> 
>  
> 
> The rest of the Dovetail plan for Danube (draft) is still here:
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Danube+Plan
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Wenjing
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Wenjing Chu
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2017 5:33 PM
> *To:* Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com
> <mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>; Jose Lausuch
> <jose.laus...@ericsson.com <mailto:jose.laus...@ericsson.com>>; Gaoliang
> (kubi) <jean.gaoli...@huawei.com <mailto:jean.gaoli...@huawei.com>>;
> morgan.richo...@orange.com <mailto:morgan.richo...@orange.com>; Tomofumi
> Hayashi <tohay...@redhat.com <mailto:tohay...@redhat.com>>; Ulrich
> Kleber <ulrich.kle...@huawei.com <mailto:ulrich.kle...@huawei.com>>;
> SULLIVAN, BRYAN L <bs3...@att.com <mailto:bs3...@att.com>>; Dave Neary
> <dne...@redhat.com <mailto:dne...@redhat.com>>; Lijun (Matthew)
> <matthew.li...@huawei.com <mailto:matthew.li...@huawei.com>>;
> 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV' <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Dovetail weekly meeting agenda
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Here is a list of topics I propose we try to cover this Friday:
> 
>  
> 
> 1)  Test case requirement update (Dave Neary) – 20 min
> 
> 2)  Danube plan review – agreement on TSC report on 3/21 (Wenjing) –
> 20 min
> 
> 3)  Functest/yardstick/testWG dependencies update: result DB,
> refstack, interface, http/https – (Mathew/Jose/Chris P…) – 15 min
> 
> 4)  Dovetail test/qa/CI requirements (Uli/Leo) – 15 min
> 
> 5)  How to get started on test area/test case review (Bryan/Wenjing)
> – 15 min
> 
> 6)  AOB – 5 min
> 
>  
> 
> This is based on a 1.5 hour long meeting as we discussed last week. If
> you are to lead a topic, please come prepared so we can make max use of
> the meeting time. Thanks.
> 
>  
> 
> I also saw Hongbo’s meeting invite that reverts back to our original 7AM
> PDT spot (while rest of the world stays the same hour). I’m not sure if
> that slot is free from GTM bridge conflict for 7:00 – 8:30 period, or if
> something needs to be changed. Hongbo, can you help sort the bridge
> problem out? I’m unable to login to verify one way or the other. It says
> I have no permission.
> 
>  
> 
> Also, Does anyone in US have problem with the new time?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Wenjing
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Revising test requirements with "brainstorming"

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

I finally got to revising the test requirements with the suggestions in
the "Additional brainstorming", and it is really difficult, for a few
reasons:

 * There is no attribution, and no indication when a suggestion
represents consensus or a group agreement
 * The ideas there are broad principles ("Focus on OPNFV activities")
rather than proposed changes/replacements for the existing text.

I can try to revise the text above to include proposed changes for
discussion based on these brainstorming ideas, but I do not have
confidence that they are anything more than one person's opinion at this
point.

Can we have discussion of these proposals one by one as an agenda item
for tomorrow's meeting, please?

Thanks,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] [Announce] OPNFV E-release naming

[Dave Neary]

Hi Ray,

I think Euphrates would be a great choice.

For European choices, Ebro and Elbe come to mind, but I really like the
idea of going back to Asia for the next release.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 02/15/2017 04:49 PM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> All,
> 
> As discussed on the last TSC call, I'd like to get the process started
> for the E-release naming.
> 
> A quick reminder that we have a river theme for OPNFV releases and our
> first 4 release names are Arno (Europe), Brahmaputra (Asia), Colorado
> (Americas), and Danube (Europe).  Let's continue the tradition of
> rotating through continents/geographies, so we could venture into
> Africa/Oceania for the first time or return to Asia...
> 
> Can you send me your top 2-3 nominations (at most) in the following
> format by 5pm Pacific Time on February 24th?  After I collect all the
> nominations, I'll send out a SurveyMonkey poll so the community can pick
> the winner.
> 
> Format: River name (locations)
> For example, 
> 
>   * Esk (Australia)
>   * Euphrates (Asia)
>   * etc.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tsc mailing list
> opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tsc
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]if the l3vpn feature is completed fully in C release

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

For my part, my understanding of this when Chris, Hongbo and myself
wrote it in New Hampshire, our intention was to communicate that a
feature was not elligible if it was only done for one specific stack or
one installer - this was our best guess at communicating "widely
available". I think all installers and all possible stack combinations
would be excessive.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 01/18/2017 03:37 PM, HU, BIN wrote:
> 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: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 12:20 PM
> To: Christopher Price <chrispric...@gmail.com>; Tapio Tallgren 
> <tapio.tallg...@nokia.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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" 
>> <opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on behalf of 
>> tapio.tallg...@nokia.com> 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
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
>> 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> 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
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]if the l3vpn feature is completed fully in C release

[Dave Neary]

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.

On 01/14/2017 02:32 AM, Tianhongbo wrote:
> Hi Jose:
> 
>  
> 
> Last dovetail weekly meeting, we have reviewed dovetail test cases and
> requirements
> 
>  
> 
> Here is the action item from the last dovetail weekly meeting:
> 
>  
> 
> Vpn or l3vpn: unclear if the l3vpn feature is completed fully in C
> release (action: to collect definitive answer for next review).
> Commented that it should be excluded on the ground of not yet mature and
> have adoption (see test case reqs & cvp description).
> 
>  
> 
> Could you please help to get the feedback to the dovetail for the next
> review?
> 
> The minutes is attached by the end for email.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
>  
> 
> hongbo
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [polestar] Reminder of call this thursday 11AM US EST - also send me suggestions on when to do a F2F

[Dave Neary]

Hi Margaret,

I'll be at FOSDEM, ONS, OpenStack Boston, and OPNFV Summit over the
coming months for sure, and may add one or two other events if required.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 01/10/2017 11:26 PM, Margaret Chiosi wrote:
> Folks:
> Sounds like ONS may be the best time for us to do F2F vs Openstack in
> Atlanta next month.
> Let me know which conferences you will be attending to see if we can get
> a quorum at one of these:
> 1. Openstack Atlanta, Feb
> 2. Openstack Boston, May?
> 3. ONS Santa Clara, April
> 4. Layer 123 Santa Clara, April
> 4. Others?
> 
> -- 
> Margaret Chiosi
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opendaylight-dev] OpenDaylight-OPNFV sync meeting

[Dave Neary]

Hi Chris,

On 12/15/2016 03:58 AM, Christopher Price wrote:
> Hi Dave & All,
> 
> I just wanted to say thanks Dave for continuing to keep these channels open 
> for our communities to open and discuss topics of interest.  
> I also think it may be worth evaluating what we might use such a channel for. 
>  We have developed significant and fluent (enough?) collaboration across our 
> infra, SFC, NetVirt, BGPVPN, GBP and other projects where a lot of discussion 
> occurs.
> 
> Could we turn this meeting sequence to address items that fall outside of 
> those areas, or extend beyond our current boundaries or structure?  If so 
> where would it be helpful and useful to do so.
> 
> This question is not aimed at Dave alone but at the rest of us to make sure 
> we are able to continue to leverage each communities capabilities, competence 
> and directions.  Create visibility? Incubate new ideas? Solve problems and 
> issues?
> 
> Worth some thought I think, apologies for the spam if you don’t think the 
> same. ;)

Thanks for the follow-up!

I was actually considering that, given the good ongoing collaboration
you detail above, that there is probably not any need to continue a
specific ODL-OPNFV meeting. It might make more sense to have an ongoing
OPNFV-OpenStack meeting instead (with a different OpenStack project
targeted each month, perhaps?).

If everything is going fine, and the p[eople who need to be working
together are working together, then this is Just Another Meeting, and we
don't need it.

Of course, your suggestion is also worthy of consideration - maybe the
places we are talking do not cover all the areas where we *should* be
talking, and more outreach is needed.

Thoughts, everyone?

Thanks,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] OpenDaylight-OPNFV sync meeting

[Dave Neary]

Hi all,

Absent a topic, I will cancel this meeting for tomorrow.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 12/14/2016 08:41 AM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We have an OpenDaylight-OPNFV sync meeting on the books for tomorrow
> morning (10am EST).
> 
> Do we have a topic to discuss? Nothing comes to mind for me, but perhaps
> there are Carbon related issues that someone would like to raise?
> 
> Please let me know ASAP, or I will cancel the meeting later today for
> lack of an agenda.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> 

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

[opnfv-tech-discuss] OpenDaylight-OPNFV sync meeting

[Dave Neary]

Hi all,

We have an OpenDaylight-OPNFV sync meeting on the books for tomorrow
morning (10am EST).

Do we have a topic to discuss? Nothing comes to mind for me, but perhaps
there are Carbon related issues that someone would like to raise?

Please let me know ASAP, or I will cancel the meeting later today for
lack of an agenda.

Thanks,
Dave.


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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Discussion for OpenRetriever

[Dave Neary]

Hello Xuan Jia,

My thinking on this is that when you are running a containerized VNF,
you will interact primarily with the COE - the infrastructure (and thus,
whether it's AWS, Azure, OpenStack, or MyLittleCloud APIs) should be
abstracted away and is not part of the application definition - the
VNFD/NSD will define QOS criteria, networking requirements, etc, and the
COE should work with the VIM to ensure that the infrastructure is
provisioned in a way which can meet those constraints.

If that's the case, then I think it makes more sense to target the COE
interfaces directly, rather than attempt to leverage OpenStack APIs for
provisioning of container workloads.

In other words, I think mode ii makes more sense than mode iii.

Can you perhaps explain the investment which you have in Magnum and Zun
which has led you to the conclusion that mode iii is preferable, please?

Thanks,
Dave.

On 12/02/2016 07:17 AM, jiaxuan wrote:
> Hi All
> Thanks for the discussion for the new project proposal OpenRetriever. I
> answer these questions we have discussed in the last meeting.  If I have
> something misunderstood, please let me know.  
> 
> 1. If there is a baremetal deployment, in case of COE, regarding networking
> part, do you intend to use kubernetes or native COE APIs.
> To Prem:  If we discuss it without openstack, I intend to use Kubernetes as
> I am familiar with it.  But Openstack has been deployed widely in CT, I have
> to think about how container integrated with openstack . So we can choose
> mode ii or mode iii .  The reason why I want to choose mode iii is that for
> mode ii, the upper layer has to use COE api to manage container, it has to
> develop new plugin to suit COE api. If using Zun to translate COE api to
> Openstack API, the upper layer will not change much.  'legacy', we need to
> keep the previous software can work , but in mode iii, it still keeps the
> Native COE APIs. 
> 
> 2. Do I meet the performance issue?
> To Prem: Currently, we don't meet the performance issue. We only tested vIMS
> .  Well,  for other VNFs, it may need DPDK technology or others to
> accelerate the network speed. This proposal we have considered to integrate
> DPDK , SR-IOV and others . As far as I know Intel is working on it. 
> 
> 3.  If to use kubernetes on top of OpenStack i.e. kubernetes as VNFM and OS
> as VIM (Model 2) , why to prefer Model 3 than Model 2
> To Dave:  I think kubernetes is a kind of COE and controls the resources
> like CPU. Kubernetes could be a VIM.  But if  to make Kubernetes as VNFM, it
> will be mode 1.  If I misunderstand, please correct me .
> 
>  4. if there is an explicit goal of interoperability of VNFs instantiated by
> VMs and Containers
> To Steve: Well, I don't think so. Kuryr project (
> https://github.com/openstack/kuryr ) can provide network for container.
> Containers can connect to VMs and VMs can connect to containers. 
> 
> 5. why does it mean to change COE API to native API?
> To Bryan: I am sorry I didn't understand the question yesterday.  I meant
> change COE api to Openstack API. Then the container can be managed by
> Openstack.  For the upper layer, we will not change many things. If the
> total platform is containerized, the upper layer has a lot of things to
> modify. We can make it step by step.  Collaborate with community to add new
> feature in TOSCA and standardized VIM Api. If COE API can be the stand API
> of VIM, this proposal will be simple.   
> 
> 6.suggested to create software within existing scenarios instead of creating
> additional OPNFV scenarios, those container components can be added to
> existing scenarios.
> To Chris ,Bryan, Uli: 
> I am sorry, what do you mean 'the existing scenarios' ?  Could you give me
> some examples? Thanks. 
> OpenRetriever focus on the container integrated with openstack and how
> containerized VNF runs in the platform.  It not only needs to install
> additional components, but also integrated DPDK and other container
> technology to let the VNF run in the container.  
> 
> Good talk with you
> 
> BR
> 
> Xuan Jia
> Project Manager
> Big Data & IT Technology Research Center China Mobile Research Institute
> 32 Xuanwumen West Street, Xicheng Distirct, Beijing 100032, China
> Mobile: (+86) 3811000575
> E-mail: jiax...@chinamobile.com
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

[opnfv-tech-discuss] OpenStack contribution: Gets easier over time (blog)

[Dave Neary]

Hi all,

A colleague of mine, Assaf Muller, did a brief study on time to patch
acceptance compared on various axes: number of patches, number of
reviews, time since first patch, size of patch, etc.

He found, unsurprisingly, that the more patches you propose, the quicker
the patches are accepted, on average. The smaller the patch, the quicker
it is accepted, on average. And the more code a person reviews, the
quicker their patches are accepted.

Blog post, slides, and scripts are available here:
https://assafmuller.com/2016/12/02/upstream-contribution-give-up-or-double-down/

Thought some of you might appreciate this!

Thanks,
Dave.
-- 
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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Discussion on UTC vs. Pacific Time

[Dave Neary]

Hi Ray,

On 12/02/2016 01:33 PM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> Over the past couple of years, we've had discussions on whether meetings
> like TSC or Release call times should be based on Pacific Time (as has
> been the tradition since OPNFV started) or if the community should move
> to UTC.
> 
> UTC obviously has the benefit of not changing with Daylight
> Savings/Summer time switches twice a year in North America/Europe.  When
> we last had the discussion, a large number of people preferred staying
> with Pacific Time as most of their work meetings (esp. outside of OPNFV)
> are based on their local timezones and not UTC. 
> 
> If we're to move to UTC here's how the meeting times will change for the
> TSC call in Pacific and Central European Timezones.

The main issue for me is that the 6am PST -> 9am PST time slots (9am -
noon EST for me) are very congested, because they are the only time
slots that are feasible for West Coast, Asia, Europe, and East Coast
participants (including at work).

For the most part, the other meetings I have track local time for
European and US participants (with 2-3 weeks negotiation during the
period when one has switched to Summer/Winter time and the other has
not). I realise this is unfair to Chinese participants and other
countries without DST, as twice a year the meeting times change for them.

If OPNFV's TSC meeting changes to tracking a UTC time, this would not
have a huge impact, except to potentially create a conflict with the
meetings happening the hour before/after now, which track US or European
local time.

Thanks,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [polestar]:next call

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

The biweekly OPNFV C call is on Monday at 10, a VCO sync call is at
11am on Monday, Tuesday at 9 is open for me, and while I have a conflict
at 10 on Wednesday, I don't see anything OPNFV related that conflicts
between 10 and 12 that day.

My vote would be for 9am on Tuesday (EST).

Thanks,
Dave.

On 11/22/2016 01:19 PM, Margaret Chiosi wrote:
> Folks: sorry about missing so many meetings. And now I will be traveling
> 12/1-17
> 
> Can we move the meeting for next week to Mon 10 or 11 est or Tue 9 am
> est or Wed 10'or 11 est?
> We need to synch up. Thanks
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] do we need to adjust the time for the dovetail meeting

[Dave Neary]

Hi Hongbo,

On 11/17/2016 03:47 AM, Tianhongbo wrote:
> Hi Dave:
> 
> We have two options:
> 
> 1)keep the same local time  in Europe and the US, which would move the 
> meeting one hour later in China
>  
> 2)keep the same local time in China, which move the meeting time one hour 
> earlier in Europe and the US.
> 
> Right now, we are using the option 2).
> 
> Do we need to change or keep?

If my understanding is correct, then moving to option 2) is the change,
since the meeting time listed here:
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings#Meetings-Dovetail is 7am PST.

I have no objection to moving to 6am PST, but my understanding is that
we should update the meeting page to this new time, to update the OPNFV
community calendar, if we do this.

Regards,
Dave.

> -----Original Message-
> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com] 
> Sent: 2016年11月16日 3:22
> To: Tianhongbo; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] do we need to adjust the time 
> for the dovetail meeting
> 
> Apologies - with your proposal the meeting would move from 10am to 9am - I do 
> not usually have a conflict at this time.
> 
> In the Meetings page, the meeting time is listed as 7am Pacific time - this 
> is 10am Eastern, and currently 4pm European Standard Time.
> 
> Are you proposing that we change this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> On 11/15/2016 02:18 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
>> Hi Hongbo,
>>
>> My preference would be to maintain the meeting at the same local time 
>> in Europe and the US, which would move the meeting one hour later in China.
>>
>> I have a regular conflict at 8am local time on Friday (although for 
>> the next 2 weeks, I do not).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave.
>>
>> On 11/15/2016 03:22 AM, Tianhongbo wrote:
>>> Hi all:
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> The America and European people for dovetail team have experienced 
>>> the time changed one hour earlier for the last dovetail meeting
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> For Chinese people, it keeps same as before.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Do you have any comments for that.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> If no further comments, we will keep same as last meeting time.
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> hongbo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>>> 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
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] do we need to adjust the time for the dovetail meeting

[Dave Neary]

Apologies - with your proposal the meeting would move from 10am to 9am -
I do not usually have a conflict at this time.

In the Meetings page, the meeting time is listed as 7am Pacific time -
this is 10am Eastern, and currently 4pm European Standard Time.

Are you proposing that we change this?

Thanks,
Dave.

On 11/15/2016 02:18 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hi Hongbo,
> 
> My preference would be to maintain the meeting at the same local time in
> Europe and the US, which would move the meeting one hour later in China.
> 
> I have a regular conflict at 8am local time on Friday (although for the
> next 2 weeks, I do not).
> 
> Regards,
> Dave.
> 
> On 11/15/2016 03:22 AM, Tianhongbo wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>>  
>>
>> The America and European people for dovetail team have experienced the
>> time changed one hour earlier for the last dovetail meeting
>>
>>  
>>
>> For Chinese people, it keeps same as before.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Do you have any comments for that.
>>
>>  
>>
>> If no further comments, we will keep same as last meeting time.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>>  
>>
>> hongbo
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Kicking off nominations for Q3'2016 OPNFV Quarterly Awards

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

I would like to nominate Luke Hinds for Collaboration, for all of the
work he did leading the effort to get the CII security badge in the
Colorado release, for bootstrapping the security scanning project, and
for ensuring that issues revealed by the scan were reported and fixed
according to the CII certified process.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 10/14/2016 01:52 AM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> All, 
> 
> It's time for the Q3 Awards.  As a reminder, this is to recognize
> contributions from OPNFV community members in the following categories.
> 
>   * Code development
>   * Collaboration (e.g. across different OPNFV projects or with other
> upstream communities)
>   * Documentation & User support
>   * Integration
>   * Testing
> 
> In order to give new people opportunities for recognition, the award
> winners from the previous quarter will not be eligible to win the same
> category 2 quarters in a row. As a reminder, below are the winners from
> Q2'2016.
> 
>   * Code development: Jose Lausuch & Ulas Kozat
>   * Collaboration: Bryan Sullivan
>   * Documentation & User Support: Mark Beierl
>   * Integration: Dan Radez & Hongbo Tian
>   * Testing: Maryam Tahhan
> 
> (So for example, Jose will not be eligible to win the Code development
> category again in Q3. However, he can be a winner for other categories)
> 
> If you'd like to nominate someone for any of the 5 areas above, please
> send me the following information by 5pm Pacific Time on October 21st
> (Friday).
> 
>   * Name/Company
>   * Award category
>   * Brief description of her/his contribution
> 
> Once nomination statements are collected, voting will be done by TSC
> members (e.g. on SurveyMonkey). Thanks and let me know if you have any
> questions.
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30

[Dave Neary]

Apologies - replied to the wrong meeting minutes email. The email I
replied to was where this task was documented as a priority work item.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 10/11/2016 12:44 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
> Hello Hongbo,
> 
> I see that Chris and myself were both absent last week. For my part, I
> was at an event and had difficulties joining.
> 
> I also notice that one item outstanding from the previous week was not
> discussed, and I would like to make progress on that issue this week.
> 
> We agree that we should finalize the test criteria for Dovetail, and
> that we should do this as soon as possible, before we have added too
> many test cases to the Dovetail test suite.
> 
> Looking at the draft document:
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269
> it seems to me that there are a number of areas where we need discussion
> and agreement.
> 
> 1. Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream - there was some
> discussion on this point when it was proposed, we should ensure that we
> have agreement
> 2. Requirement that tests pass on multiple scenarios in OPNFV test
> infrastructure - You have expressed concerns that this is difficult
> because of multiple SDN controllers
> 3. Required documentation for test cases - we currently do not have test
> cases which satisfy all of the documentation requirements - or the
> requested requirement from the C committee that the test case should
> be sufficiently well described to allow manual execution
> 4. "Out of scope" - Chris has stated that this section should be removed
> from the document, we should discuss and agree whether this is correct.
> 
> Are there any other potential areas of disagreement? If there are, we
> need to document them, and figure out how we converge on an agreed
> document. This document can then be used to qualify proposed test cases
> and verify that they fulfill the requirements.
> 
> Thank you,
> Dave.
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/03/2016 09:08 PM, Tianhongbo wrote:
>> Hi all:
>>
>>  
>>
>> That is the dovetail weekly meeting minutes:
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes:   
>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.html
>>
>> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes (text):
>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.txt
>>
>> 11:00:09 - collabot: Log:   
>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.log.html
>>
>>  
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>>  
>>
>> hongbo
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
>> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30

[Dave Neary]

Hello Hongbo,

I see that Chris and myself were both absent last week. For my part, I
was at an event and had difficulties joining.

I also notice that one item outstanding from the previous week was not
discussed, and I would like to make progress on that issue this week.

We agree that we should finalize the test criteria for Dovetail, and
that we should do this as soon as possible, before we have added too
many test cases to the Dovetail test suite.

Looking at the draft document:
https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269
it seems to me that there are a number of areas where we need discussion
and agreement.

1. Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream - there was some
discussion on this point when it was proposed, we should ensure that we
have agreement
2. Requirement that tests pass on multiple scenarios in OPNFV test
infrastructure - You have expressed concerns that this is difficult
because of multiple SDN controllers
3. Required documentation for test cases - we currently do not have test
cases which satisfy all of the documentation requirements - or the
requested requirement from the C committee that the test case should
be sufficiently well described to allow manual execution
4. "Out of scope" - Chris has stated that this section should be removed
from the document, we should discuss and agree whether this is correct.

Are there any other potential areas of disagreement? If there are, we
need to document them, and figure out how we converge on an agreed
document. This document can then be used to qualify proposed test cases
and verify that they fulfill the requirements.

Thank you,
Dave.



On 10/03/2016 09:08 PM, Tianhongbo wrote:
> Hi all:
> 
>  
> 
> That is the dovetail weekly meeting minutes:
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes:   
> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.html
> 
> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes (text):
> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.txt
> 
> 11:00:09 - collabot: Log:   
> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.log.html
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
>  
> 
> hongbo
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call 10/6/2016

[Dave Neary]

Thank you Min,

Unfortunately I was not online, and joined the incorrect bridge from my
phone. I am disappointed I missed another meeting.

Can meeting details be confirmed a little further in advance for future
meetings?

Regards,
Dave.

On 10/06/2016 08:54 AM, Min Yu wrote:
> All,
> 
> Please use the bridge info below to join today's Polestar call. My
> apologies for the last minute change.
> 
> OPNFV SPC Polestar WG Call 
> 
> Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. 
> https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/158053245 
> 
> You can also dial in using your phone. 
> United States (Toll-free) 1 877 309 2070 
> United States +1 (571) 317-3116 
> 
> Access Code: 158-053-245 
> 
> 
> First GoToMeeting? Try a test
> session:   http://help.citrix.com/getready 
> <http://help.citrix.com/getready>
> --
> Min Yu
> Client Services Coordinator
> The Linux Foundation
> +1(530) 902-6464 (m)
> m...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:m...@linuxfoundation.org>
> Skype: minyudecorah
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] 2016 Committer Board election result

[Dave Neary]

The competition was fierce... I hope we don't see any campaigns like
that in OPNFV again ;-)

Congratulations!
Dave.

On 10/04/2016 07:25 AM, Ulrich Kleber wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> congratulations, Chris!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Uli
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> [mailto:opnfv-tsc-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Raymond Paik
> *Sent:* Saturday, 01 October, 2016 02:31
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tsc] 2016 Committer Board election result
> 
>  
> 
> All, 
> 
>  
> 
> The poll for the Committer Board election was closed about 30 minutes
> ago, and I'd like to announce that Chris Price has been elected as the
> Committer Board Member.   Congratulations, Chris...
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, 
> 
>  
> 
> Ray
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Follow up on Upstreaming Questions

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

On 09/20/2016 12:57 PM, Daniel Smith wrote:
> Several weeks ago as part of the inclusion of Requirements Projects,  I
> asked how we know that people are looking at what we are producing in
> Requirements projects and how we (OPNFV) ensure that deliverables from
> Requirements projects are being reviewed and taken into account upstream
> (from an OPNFV overall standpoint).
> 
> Would any of you be able to shed some light on this?  The current
> impression that I have is we have the docs that sit in a repo and that’s it.

To my knowledge, there is no formal process. It is up to individual
project members to reach out to the relevant upstream projects and
propose their changes there.

Regards,
Dave.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] OPNFV Security Article in linux.com

[Dave Neary]

Nice! Congratulations to all involved.

Dave.

On 09/13/2016 08:00 AM, Luke Hinds wrote:
> Nice write up on linux.com <http://linux.com>
> 
> https://www.linux.com/blog/how-opnfv-earned-its-security-stripes-and-received-cii-best-practices-badge
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Following up on Project Health metrics discussion

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

On 09/07/2016 02:24 AM, Frank Brockners (fbrockne) wrote:
> +1.
> 
> Also note that when we defined the project lifecycle we used metrics
> like the ones mentioned only as guidance rather than something to
> compute a composite value – and even there, we did not constrain things
> to metrics in OPNFV only.
> 
>  
> 
> Frank
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*SULLIVAN, BRYAN L [mailto:bs3...@att.com]
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 6. September 2016 18:48
> *To:* Frank Brockners (fbrockne) <fbroc...@cisco.com>; Raymond Paik
> <rp...@linuxfoundation.org>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Following up on Project Health
> metrics discussion
> 
>  
> 
> I’m unsure of the overall value of this exercise. Simply ask the PTLs
> what the “health” of the project is. An honest PTL will tell you, and
> that’s the only type we should elect.

I dispute that this is a question of honesty.

When I was starting out my software engineering career, I had an
experienced manager who would ask me for estimates on how projects I was
working on were going. "Fine," I would answer, "I should be finished
that feature next week."

Next week rolled around, and I'd get the question again. "Almost done,
just a few bugs to work out. By next week it'll be done."

I wasn't lying the first week, I just had no idea how to estimate
software development.

Similarly, if you ask a PTL if their project is "healthy", I would fully
expect all projects to say yes - after all, what does an unhealthy
project mean?

This is where metrics come in... if we can flag certain sets of
behaviours as indicating an issue, that allows adjustment. It's not
enough to say "30 messages per month with that tag to tech-discuss -
that seems pretty good" - by looking at behaviours, we can see who is
not engaging effectively upstream, who is developing a lot of code in an
OPNFV repo, which projects seem stuck in wiki/email discussions, which
projects are not using Jira so well, etc. I don't know what those sets
of behaviours/metrics might be, I figure that is the point of the
project health metrics initiative.

That said, I agree with both Frank and Bryan that unadorned/contextless
composite metrics can mask, rather than reveal, some of these issues,
and as such are not useful. With context, and with a human eye to
evaluate things, some form of composite can be a useful diagnostic tool.

Thanks,
Dave.




> Publish metrics if you want (we already do), but I would avoid trying to
> draw conclusions from them. We do not have the luxury (if you can even
> call it that!) of creating and maintaining a project-introspection
> framework ala what you might see in corporate development shops. Even
> considering what metrics are “useful” for specific purposes (e.g. what
> “useful”/reliable implications can you draw from them) takes too much
> time away from the real work.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of *Frank
> Brockners (fbrockne)
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 06, 2016 7:39 AM
> *To:* Raymond Paik; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Following up on Project Health
> metrics discussion
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Ray,
> 
>  
> 
> thanks for posting the initial cut. IMHO a "composite score", as
> proposed on the page, could be **very** misleading, especially for
> projects which do most of the work upstream. So unless we track all
> upstream repos and upstream Jiras (or similar), I would suggest to
> **not** compute a composite score but evaluate things qualitatively only.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks, Frank
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Raymond Paik
> *Sent:* Montag, 29. August 2016 19:33
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] Following up on Project Health metrics
> discussion
> 
>  
> 
> All, 
> 
>  
> 
> I had an action item from last week to start a wiki page for the
> "project health metrics".  You can find a proposal page
> at https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Health+Metrics.
> 
>  
> 
> Please add your comments/feedback via email or directly on the wiki
> page.  I listed four activity areas that was discussed on the TSC call,
> but feel free to add other activities that the 

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]issures and suggestion: to upload the dovetail codes to the git/gerrit

[Dave Neary]

Hi Hongbo,

Since Dovetail is not participating in the C release, we should not have
a C release branch, I think - I would suggest that we work in master only.

I do not understand why we would need to be on a C branch to run our
test suite against a C release branch.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 09/05/2016 11:46 PM, Tianhongbo wrote:
> Hi Bin:
> 
>  
> 
> thanks.
> 
>  
> 
> Yes, we  need the help from Aric.
> 
>  
> 
> Also, we need the suggestion from Aric.
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards
> 
>  
> 
> hongbo
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*HU, BIN [mailto:bh5...@att.com]
> *Sent:* 2016年9月6日11:44
> *To:* Tianhongbo; 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV'
> *Subject:* RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]issures and suggestion: to
> upload the dovetail codes to the git/gerrit
> 
>  
> 
> I think you need to work with Aric to create stable/colorado branch.
> 
>  
> 
> Then cherrypick those C Release stuff from master to stable/colorado.
> 
>  
> 
> Bin
> 
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Tianhongbo
> *Sent:* Monday, September 05, 2016 8:37 PM
> *To:* 'TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV' <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]issures and suggestion: to
> upload the dovetail codes to the git/gerrit
> 
>  
> 
> Hi dovetailers:
> 
>  
> 
> Now, we are trying to upload the documents and scripts to the dovetail
> repos.
> 
> But , there are at least two branches: master and C release. The master
> branch will be used for the D release.
> 
> The goal of the dovetail is to test against the C release now and to
> test against the D release in future. The problem comes: where can we
> put the documents and scripts?
> 
> There will be no problem with the documents. But there will be the
> issues with the scripts.
> 
> If we merge the script in the master, we cannot use the scripts to test
> the C release.
> 
> If we merge the scripts in the C release branch, we cannot use the
> scripts for the D release.
> 
> Meanwhile, the C release branch was frozen, we cannot edit the scripts
> in the C release branch now.
> 
>  
> 
> Objection for the dovetail scripts:
> 
> 1.   The codes will be used in future（next will be used for D release）
> 
> 2.   The first version of dovetail is used to test C release
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Do you have any idea to handle these problem?
> 
>  
> 
> I have a suggestion:
> 
>  
> 
> When we commit the patches to the master, we can try our best to merge
> in the master branch. These will be used for the future release.
> 
> Meanwhile, cherry pick the patches to the C release. If the C release
> was frozen, cherry pick the patches to the dovetail branch.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Any comments are welcome.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
>  
> 
> hongbo
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 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
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] Opening nominations for the Committers-at-Large TSC elections

[Dave Neary]

Hi Heather,

I was just following the description Ray did re "community debate and
discussions" - my recollection is that there was a week between the end
of the nominations and the start of voting specifically to enable debate
and politicking.

I would definitely not like to see the polarization that we see in
national elections (the US is not an exception in this), but I trust our
community can have respectful discourse, and identify differences in
what candidates bring to the TSC without driving wedges.

I appreciate the Code of Conduct reminder - I hope that we keep that in
mind through all community discussion!

Thanks,
Dave.

On 08/11/2016 09:35 PM, Heather Kirksey wrote:
> Dave, I'm not sure what exactly you have in mind for "discussion" around
> candidacies this election, but I would like to remind everyone that what
> feels like open debate can, when applied to people, become problematic
> and even abusive *very* quickly. 
> 
> It's also easy for such discussion to devolve into politicking, and I
> think we need look no further than the current US election cycle to see
> how badly that can go. 
> 
> Finally, let me say that if we do engage in any debate on various
> candidates on tech-discuss, I will be monitoring those conversations
> closely and I expect that nothing even resembling a violation of our
> code of conduct will occur. We are building a good sense of community
> here at OPNFV and these committer-at-large elections are meant to
> increase that, not polarize it.
> 
> Heather
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Raymond Paik
> <rp...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
> 
> Dave, 
> 
> Good point.  I'll create a wiki page (hopefully today) listing all
> the accepted nominees.  I can then update it as we get more
> nominees/accepts.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ray
> 
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Dave Neary <dne...@redhat.com
> <mailto:dne...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ray,
> 
> In order to enable the start of discussions during the nomination
> period, do you think it would be good to have a list of confirmed
> nominees for election on the wiki, curated as new nominees are
> added?
> 
> I for one have lost track of how many nominations have been
> made, and I
> don't know which nominations have been accepted (beyond those who
> replied to the list).
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> On 08/11/2016 01:45 PM, Raymond Paik wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > I'd like to make a suggestion on the election...
> >
> > We actually started this election early and as a lot of people are 
> out
> > on vacation, I'd like to propose keeping the nomination period open 
> for
> > another week.  The 3rd bullet on the wiki
> > 
> (https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Community+Election+Procedure#CommunityElectionProcedure-CommunityTSCmemberelection
> 
> <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/Community+Election+Procedure#CommunityElectionProcedure-CommunityTSCmemberelection>)
> > talks about a week of "community debate & discussions" on
> > opnfv-tech-discuss, but I think it'd be more productive to open the
> > nomination for another week (discussions can still happen on the 
> mailing
> > list).
> >
> > We can definitely discuss this at the upcoming TSC call, but please 
> let
> > me know if you have any questions or concerns.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ray
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Raymond Paik 
> <rp...@linuxfoundation.org <mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org>
> > <mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org 
> <mailto:rp...@linuxfoundation.org>>>
> wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Just a quick reminder that the nomination period closes this 
> Friday
> > at 5pm Pacific Time.  Please send in your nominations or post 
> self
> > nominations
> > at 
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/2016+Commiters-at-Large+TSC+Election+Self-Nominations
> 
> <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/2016+Commiters-at-Large+TSC+Election+Self-Nominations>
> > 
> <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/2016+Commiters-at-Large+TSC+Election+Self-Nominations
> 
> <https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/DEV/2016+Commiters-at-Large+TSC+E

[opnfv-tech-discuss] TSC Committer At Large nomination: Tom Nadeau

[Dave Neary]

Hi all,

* Name: Tom Nadeau <tnad...@brocade.com>
* Employer: Brocade
* As an outgoing TSC member, I think Tom would be another great
representative of the Silver members in the TSC, and his practical
experience in open source has been, and will continue to be, invaluable
to the group. I would like to nominate him for consideration as a
Committer at Large.

Thanks,
Dave.


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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Aug 5 Dovetail meeting notes

[Dave Neary]

ant they need to be part of the base test system. These might
> include tests for reference VNFs that we collect and run as blueprints
> under various VNFMs, e.g. thru the Models project. In those cases, if a
> vendor does not support one of the VNFMs for some reason (as with
> vIMS/Cloudily), then they need to contribute the support using their
> VNFM to OPNFV.
> 
> -  The rest of the Dovetail tests will be based upon existing
> upstream test suites including certification suites such as RefStack. We
> need to be proactively reaching out to these upstream teams, e.g. per
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/interop-challenge-meeting-2016-08-03.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bryan Sullivan | AT
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Prakash Ramchandran
> *Sent:* Friday, August 05, 2016 8:08 AM
> *To:* opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> *Subject:* [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Aug 5 Dovetail meeting notes
> 
>  
> 
> Here is today's OPNFV Dovetail meeting notes based on Gotomeeting and 
> #opnfv-dovetail channels ...
> 
> Agenda:
> 
> 1)start point(L3VPN, SFC and IPV6)
> 
> 2)test cases structures
> 
> 3) additional basic testcases( for SDN controller and NFVI…)
> 
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269
> 
> 4)other issues
> 
>  
> 
> For more details, please refer to:
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Home
> 
>  
> 
> Summary Notes of discussions:
> 
>  
> 
> Chris defines what should be content of Dovetail
> 
> should focus on requirements and not project and release anagement
> 
> info test will be on SUT that includes OPNFV VIM + NFVi as shown in link
> 
> The details to follow the test plan
> 
> Bin says we should first verify Functest and Yardstick before we start
> on Dovetail
> 
> Dave & Chris say they should be standlone and as a subset may be needed
> 
> Purpose of the Dovetail here is to show what is needed for OPNF view of
> NFV compliance
> 
> Bin sees a potential issue here that Dovtail testing and OPNFV tests are
> different
> 
> CORD example may be able to be claim OPNFV compatibility through
> Dovetail but not from OPNFV Platform testing in Projects and Releases
> 
> Bin says Bryan wants CORD to run over OPNFV platform and Chris says
> its  different as Release testing is diffrent from Dovetail testing
> 
> Same holds for OPEN-O and OpenBaton
> 
> Hongbo and Chris want to start form IPv6 overlay testing and Bin
> suggested we reuse most of what we have from Service VM IPv6 testing
> 
> Mathew stated he has started on it and can help
> 
> Testsuya Nakamura chimed he can help in adding some specifc IPv6 related
> to it for test case structure
> 
> Tetsuya says we need a clear definition for SUT IPv6, SFC or L3VPN
> before we start test plans for IPv6
> 
> What we are starting with can be IPv6 to establish test plan, test
> design and test case documentaion templates
> 
> Prioritizing the test cases can be taken at next meeting and define a
> link to the same
> 
> #action Hongbo to establish a link and bring use cases to bring to table
> for disucssing priority
> 
> further discussions over use case can be over email
> 
>  
> 
> 07:51] 
> Minutes:
> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-dovetail/2016/opnfv-dovetail.2016-08-05-14.05.html
> 
> [07:51]  Minutes (text):
> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-dovetail/2016/opnfv-dovetail.2016-08-05-14.05.txt
> 
> [07:51] 
> Log:
> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-dovetail/2016/opnfv-dovetail.2016-08-05-14.05.log.html
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Note People who attended the Gotomeeting are not listed here in link,
> please add them when Hongbo posts the summary to Dovetail wiki.
> 
> The include
> 
> Chris Price
> 
> Dave Neary
> 
> Bi Hu
> 
> Tetsuya Nakmura
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *Prakash Ramchandran*
> 
> logo_huawei* R USA*
> 
> *FutureWei Technologies, Inc*
> 
> Email:prakash.ramchand...@huawei.com <mailto:s.c...@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
> 

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: 答复: OPNFV [Dovetall] Meeting Summary

[Dave Neary]

Thank you!

I'm not sure what the "share" button does, as I did not hear anything
about it by email.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 08/04/2016 08:59 PM, Lijun (Matthew) wrote:
> Hi, Dave
> 
> edited a draft there and used the wiki "share" botton to share to lots of 
> people already, includes you :)
> 
> here is the link
> 
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Ipv6
> 
> 
> best regards
> 
> /MatthewLi
> 
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com] 
> 发送时间: 2016年8月4日 23:20
> 收件人: Lijun (Matthew); Prakash Ramchandran; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> 主题: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: OPNFV [Dovetall] Meeting Summary
> 
> Please share the link when you have created the page.
> 
> Thanks!
> Dave.
> 
> On 08/02/2016 03:19 AM, Lijun (Matthew) wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>>  
>>
>> I will create a wiki page about the ipv6, so everyone can see the 
>> details and edit.
>>
>>  
>>
>> /MatthewLi
>>
>>  
>>
>> *发件人:*opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
>> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org>
>> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] *代表 *Prakash 
>> Ramchandran
>> *发送时间:*2016年7月30日0:02
>> *收件人:*opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
>> <mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>
>> *主题:*[opnfv-tech-discuss] OPNFV [Dovetall] Meeting Summary
>>
>>  
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Since Tianhongbo could not make to the Got meeting or IRC, the meeting 
>> was IRC only on #opnfv-meeting
>>
>>  
>>
>> Since the time ran past 8.00 due to late start besides wanted to 
>> summarize what can we retain from last 2-3 meetings besides today to 
>> consolidate Actionable Items and responsibilities...
>>
>>  
>>
>> meetbot to make sure we take proper minutes during meeting on 
>> irc..Thanks Prakash
>>
>>  [08:06] <@collabot>
>> Minutes:
>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-07-29-14.25.html
>>
>> [08:06] <@collabot> Minutes (text):
>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv
>> -meeting.2016-07-29-14.25.txt
>>
>> [08:06] <@collabot>
>> Log:
>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-07-29-14.25.log.html
>>
>> [08:06]  #info ChrisPriceAB proposes that we start a wiki page 
>> to define test case requirements, structure, and the procedure for 
>> considering new tests.
>>
>> [08:06]  I guess that didn't get minuted...
>>
>> [08:06]  Thanks everyone, feels like we made progress
>>
>>  
>>
>> Please if you want it delegated to someone else please respond back
>>
>>  
>>
>> Maybe we can spin up a wiki page under dovetail to walk through our 
>> test case requiremenents. Happy to start that.(ChrisPriceAB 
>> <http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnf
>> v-meeting.2016-07-29-14.25.log.html#l-100>,
>> 14:46:54)
>>
>> *Action 1:*Chris Price to spin wiki page for dovetail test case 
>> requirements and others can help to update it based on some structure 
>> which Chris can propose
>>
>> *Action 2:*Prakash will update the C guidance as listed below as 
>> request to Dovetail from C and we can debate it next week to
>>
>> *Action 3:*Dave Neary to review and point any deviations we have here 
>> from the agreed scope of Dovetail and any concerns he has on SDNC, 
>> Installers etc. for use case testing or suggestions to help spirit of 
>> OPNFV to keep it Open to all
>>
>> *Action 4:*Mathew Li - summarize IPv6  overlay (underlay out of scope 
>> for now) test efforts  that are taken up in different projects and 
>> consolidation of same for Dovetail once Chris Price spins the wiki 
>> with some structure to present
>>
>>  
>>
>> Here are my note from last  two meeting*Action 2*
>>
>> Note C inputs to Dovetail  : Prakash has  summary of  C request as 
>> proposed by Chris Donley
>>
>> · Chris Donley specified  directions to Dovetail stating that
>> time is essence and we need to fit into plans to get Dovetail moving 
>> as the value for OPNFV by working with Compliance Verification Program
>> (CVP) guidance.
>>
>> · There was discussions on API vs. Use case (Blackbox) Approach.
>>
>> · Since API from OPNFV projects are yet to be compiled and gap
>> asses

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Like to create a mano WG page on wiki

[Dave Neary]

Hi Prakash,

These tests look like they are intended to test only the SFC project's
version of SFC - it talks about Tacker creating service VMs and
rendering a service chain. The URL pointed to in these tests did not
resolve, looks like it was lost in the wiki migration.

How do these work when using ONOS and networking-sfc?

Thanks,
Dave.

On 07/25/2016 05:38 PM, Prakash Ramchandran wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> You asked me for SFC pointers, for now what I got from Yuyang in Yardstick is 
>  SFC use case 1 details. Use case 2 I will have to find from ODL team before 
> Thursday meeting and pass to you.
> 
> There are also test cases developed in Yardstick including 1) VM creation; 2) 
> SSH traffic; 3) Http traffic, please see following links.
> 
> OPNFV_YARDSTICK_TC029_SFC: VM Creation
> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/YARDSTICK-189
> 
> OPNFV_YARDSTICK_TC030_SFC: Block HTTP 
> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/YARDSTICK-190
> 
> OPNFV_YARDSTICK_TC031_SFC: Block SSH  
> https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/YARDSTICK-191
> 
> 
> The scripts are listed in 
> https://git.opnfv.org/cgit/yardstick/commit/yardstick/benchmark?id=9a4ed05300b2aed28e8d2ec213049d5475655577
> 
> If you have any comments let me know from Centos or Apex point of view is 
> this usable for you to test SFC?
> 
> Thanks
> Prakash
> 
> Prakash Ramchandran
>  R 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Prakash Ramchandran 
> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 11:22 AM
> To: 'Dave Neary'; Beierl, Mark
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Like to create a mano WG page on wiki
> 
> Dave,
> We have made progress and continuing our efforts to get participation and 
> please check your email for Doodle Poll for MANO WG meeting for incubation of 
> the same.
> 
> The link to mano wg page is
> 
> http://wiki.opnfv.org/display/mano
> 
> The link to OPEN-O project proposal is
> 
> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/OPNFV-OPEN-O
> 
> Thanks
> Prakash
> 
> 
> Prakash Ramchandran
>  R 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 7:57 AM
> To: Beierl, Mark; Prakash Ramchandran
> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Like to create a mano WG page on wiki
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just catching up with this post-Summit + vacation.
> 
> On 06/28/2016 09:30 PM, Beierl, Mark wrote:
>> The top level under /display is the name of the "space" under which
>> content is created.  In the case of /display/security, there is a space
>> in the Wiki dedicated to the Security project.
>>
>> Therefore if you are looking to create content under a /display/mano
>> path, we need to create a mano project space.  Has a project approval
>> been done for that yet?  If not, proposals go
>> under https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/PROJ/Project+Proposals as well as
>> related content until the project has been approved and gets its own
>> project space.
> 
> Is permission needed to create a wiki page? Or is it the creation of a
> space that needs permission?
> 
> I just want to be clear on why Prakash would need a project approval to
> create a wiki page/hierarchy for MANO topics.
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
>>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 6:12 PM, Prakash Ramchandran
>>> <prakash.ramchand...@huawei.com
>>> <mailto:prakash.ramchand...@huawei.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>> I would like to have permission to create new page as
>>> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/mano/
>>>  
>>> Trying to follow security Group  page
>>>  
>>> https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/security/
>>>  
>>> I have attached a first v 1.0 of site if you can create and let me
>>> have access to edit with following content as first cut will be helpful.
>>> Plus I invite all members of TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV to help build a strong
>>> technical team to  help ONNFV succeed in its MANO efforts.
>>> Please volunteer to Join as Contributors/Committers by adding your
>>> name to Wiki or reply me with your interest to add when Wiki page is
>>> ready.
>>>  
>>> Thanks
>>> Prakash
>>>  
&g