Hi all,
During the Beijing design summit, the Dovetail team has considered the recent
feedback from TSC and has identified the following set of actions towards an
initial CVP release:
* Have all ongoing documentation-related Gerrit reviews merged, documents
finalized (no editor's notes, open actions etc.)
* Move HA tests from optional to mandatory
* For information: Current HA suite kills OpenStack service process and
verifies continuous API availability
* Make Functest's vPing a mandatory test
We would like to request feedback from TSC if this set of actions is sufficient
to address the recently provided feedback, or if there is anything else the TSC
would deem required for the initial release.
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)
* We need to check these against the test case requirements
* Incorporate more OPNFV feature projects (e.g. SFC etc.)
Regards,
Tim (on behalf of the entire Dovetail team)
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Wenjing Chu
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 18:56
To: Christopher Price <[email protected]>; Tianhongbo
<[email protected]>; Tallgren, Tapio <[email protected]>
Cc: TSC OPNFV <[email protected]>; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] [dovetail] TSC and DoveTail
meeting to discuss scope and needs for CVP testing
There is an hour allocated for this topic. I’d encourage everyone interested,
esp. TSC members, please make an effort to join:
* Day 2, Tuesday, 14:00 - 15:00, Sculpture Room, Dovetail Danube status and
release planning, consideration of OPNFV projects in Danube, and tutorial
session
And if needed, this session can be extended to the next hour which currently is
allocated for Euphrates topics but less urgent. There is also a TSC/board joint
meeting on Friday that has a dedicated timeslot to report on CVP. With both
sessions, we may have the time needed. Tapio, I’m not sure how practical of
scheduling another meeting with the TSC at this point, but Chris’s point is a
good one, maybe we can ask/encourage TSC members to join the Dovetail session
above in order to facilitate quicker resolution. Thanks.
Wenjing
From:
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christopher Price
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:38 AM
To: Tianhongbo
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; Tallgren,
Tapio <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: TSC OPNFV <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: [opnfv-tsc] [dovetail] TSC and DoveTail meeting to discuss scope and
needs for CVP testing
Hi Tapio/HongBo,
On this weeks TSC call I understood there was an identified need for some form
of working session between the TSC and the DoveTail team to describe the
wanted/needed scope of CVP testing that DoveTail should develop for the CVP in
any given release.
As a number of us we will be in Beijing next week would this be a good
opportunity to start such a dialog? We have things like DoveTail Euphrates
planning etc on the agenda, but it would seem that we have an urgent need to
set the scope of Danube together with the TSC as a basic pre-requisite to any
other planning work.
Do we have sufficient representation at the event for such a dialog?
Could we potentially reallocate one of the scheduled hours to facilitate such a
discussion?
I don’t think we should ignore the feedback from this weeks TSC meeting, it
would seem urgent that we get this done so that we can make progress on the
right things moving forward if we hope to launch something this year.
If we are not able to do this next week, I would propose we find another way to
close this gap asap as it would seem to be urgent in the context of getting the
CVP going.
Cheers,
Chris
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
