Hi Wenjing, Thanks for responding. With regards to my first question, the question was "is API testing sufficient for an OPNFV CVP program?". I had understood from the C&C committee that the answer was no, but thought the TSC might be the right place to have a deeper discussion. IPv6 of course is a good example to discuss.
On the "curating our own" tempest suite derived from RefStack it would be good
to outline the strategy and approach. It wasn't purely a documentation
question.
Cheers,
Chris
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 28, 2017, at 02:04, Wenjing Chu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Chris, and Dave, who also raised this question about ipv6 during the TSC
> call,
>
> The question of ipv6 data path testing, like a v6ping, was considered and
> analyzed, but the conclusion was that the data path support in opnfv
> scenarios is still very weak. The one case that could potentially be
> supported is to test v6-overlay ping with a v6Router, but that test case was
> not only done as a manual process, to my knowledge, and was not automated to
> be regularly run. Folks in ipv6 project, please comment if my understanding
> is inaccurate in any way. In short, we don't have good options in ipv6 data
> path testing in Danube. We hope to rectify the problem in E.
>
> Partly for this reason, ipv6 is optional in the proposed suite, not mandatory.
>
> For documentation of RefStack, dovetail's plan was that those would be
> documented, and I think an initial sample had been started a while ago. I see
> this as a work item to be completed, not a scope question.
>
> Regards
> Wenjing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Price [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:07 AM
> To: Tim Irnich <[email protected]>; Dave Neary <[email protected]>;
> Wenjing Chu <[email protected]>; Tianhongbo
> <[email protected]>; Tallgren, Tapio <[email protected]>;
> Georg Kunz <[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
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Did we come to any conclusions on a couple of outstanding points that come to
> my mind as things to come to decisions on as they establish our technical
> scope:
> 1) Is it OK for instance that test cases only evaluate API responses? I am
> thinking of suites like the IPv6 where we do not pass any IPv6 traffic in the
> system as part of our compliance suite at this time.
> 2) Do we intend to document the inherited test cases for RefStack? If not,
> and we are not curating those tests in any way ourselves, maybe we should
> pull them out as explicit tests cases and refer instead to the RefStack
> documentation and infer that we expect RefStack to be passed on an OPNFV
> deployed system as a pre-requisite.
> We need a clear way of handling those test cases, either we curate them
> ourselves or we have a clear agreement with the OpenStack interop WG on how
> we leverage that suite. At this time we list an own curated version but
> provide no documentation of the test cases, why they were selected and the
> procedure for selection.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On 2017-06-23, 11:50, "Tim Irnich" <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 01:53
> To: Tim Irnich <[email protected]>; Wenjing Chu
> <[email protected]>; Christopher Price <[email protected]>;
> Tianhongbo <[email protected]>; Tallgren, Tapio
> <[email protected]>; Georg Kunz <[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
>
> 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
>
>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
