Hi,
my view is that the difficulty we have to converge to a clear consensus
is directly linked to what we are producing
I fully agree with Fatih's comment on the mail
https://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2017-June/016799.html
Second release had probably the best quality in term of release, since
the second release we deal with a wild rush forward "more everything"
and releases are somehow snapshots of current scenarios more or less
(usely less) tested - that is one of the reasons why the testing group
is proposing a new way for resiliency/stress testing - discussion
planned during the TSC meeting today -
So it is not surprising to see several interpretations of what
certification should be.
If we were able to say clearly "an OPNFV release is X, Y and Z" it would
be much easier.
But we are dealing with a composite object with lots of possible
combinations, features (even mature ones) have installer/scenario
constraints.
The second difficult point I see then is that due to the complexity of
the combinations, we reduced the initial scope, which is fine, but then
the question of the delta compared to OpenStack can be raised.
Adding features that are supported only by a subset of
installers/scenarios is a way to differentiate but as it is only a
subset, does it make sense to consider it for an OPNFV certification?
CVP WG and Dovetail projects have been working hard for a long time and
the last proposal is surely the best we can have regarding the context
if we consider OPNFV as a product but is it a product?
If we consider OPNFV as a framework and want to focus on NFVI/VIM,
running yardstick and be sure that the NFVI reached all the defined SLAs
makes sense for me.
In Brahmaputra we were able to successfully test the deployment of a
vIMS on several scenarios/installers (more than 1000 CI run done), this
test case was complete to test VIM/NFVI and went far beyond a check of
the OpenStack API/Interface.
Since Colorado due to the problem mentioned earlier it is unfortunately
not so stable and it was poorly tested in Danube (wait for a weekly job
we were not able to reach / test/scenario promotion, trust indicator,...)
/Morgan
On 27/06/2017 01:46, Wenjing Chu wrote:
I updated the document wiki page with the scope summarized in this
email and the latest test spec documents:
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Documentation+for+Review.
Is there any other feedback from tsc members?
Tapio,
I'll be on the tsc call tomorrow to answer any questions about the
proposal. Can we have some time on the agenda? Thanks.
Wenjing
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@ericsson.com
<mailto:tim.irn...@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi Dave, all,
Sorry for misunderstanding your point. In that case, is there any
other feedback from other TSC members on the proposal?
Tapio & Ray, I think we should reserve some time in next week's
TSC to go over the suggested test scope (both mandatory and
optional parts) for Danube compliance testing once more so that
the Dovetail team can be confident about focusing on the right things.
Regards, Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com <mailto:dne...@redhat.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 01:53
To: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@ericsson.com
<mailto:tim.irn...@ericsson.com>>; Wenjing Chu
<wenjing....@huawei.com <mailto:wenjing....@huawei.com>>;
Christopher Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com
<mailto:christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>>; Tianhongbo
<hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com
<mailto:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>>; Tallgren, Tapio
<tapio.tallg...@nsn.com <mailto:tapio.tallg...@nsn.com>>; Georg
Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com <mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>
Cc: TSC OPNFV <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>>; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
<opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [opnfv-tsc] [dovetail] TSC and
DoveTail meeting to discuss scope and needs for CVP testing
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 <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>
_______________________________________________
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
--
Morgan Richomme
Orange/ IMT/ OLN/ CNC/ NCA/ SINA
Network architect for innovative services
Future of the Network community member
Open source Orange community manager
tel. +33 (0) 296 072 106
mob. +33 (0) 637 753 326
morgan.richo...@orange.com
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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
