Hi Dave,

Your comments are very valid - and mainly in line with (my interpretation) of 
the future direction of the Dovetail test scope as discussed last week. We in 
fact agreed that more basic NFVI testing is required. As a result of this, the 
vping test cases have been proposed for inclusion. Let me add some more color 
to Tim's summary:

Our observation was that the Doctor tests run on (all) scenarios without the 
requirement for scenario owners to add special components or configuration. 
Because of this, the functionality tested by Doctor can be considered as basic 
NFVI functionality rather than scenario- or project-specific functionality. 
Nevertheless, this needs to be investigated and confirmed as part of the 
Euphrates scope.

The relevant aspect of the model test cases is that they include multi-VM VNF 
deployments and connectivity tests. In this regard, you can consider them as 
vping++ test cases. In the context of Dovetail, we will investigate how we can 
leverage these existing test cases without requiring specific functionality 
developed by Models. For example, we could factor out the model translation 
process used by Models and instead just use plain Heat templates or even just 
bash scripts. The important aspect under test here is a more complex VNF 

Of course, all those test cases need to be checked against the test 
requirements defined in Dovetail as part of the Euphrates work.

Best regards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-
> discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 7:10 AM
> To: Tim Irnich <tim.irn...@ericsson.com>; Wenjing Chu
> <wenjing....@huawei.com>; Christopher Price
> <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>; Tianhongbo
> <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; Tallgren, Tapio
> <tapio.tallg...@nsn.com>
> Cc: TSC OPNFV <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV <opnfv-
> tech-disc...@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 06/13/2017 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
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to