Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [testperf] poll for APAC friendly time slot for weekly meeting

2016-08-10 Thread MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) 
Unless someone from Europe accepts a time,
this appears to be an APAC-only meeting
(it’s doubtful anyone from North America will
join at the proposed times: something to discuss
if this wasn’t the intention).

Al

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Yujun Zhang
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:48 PM
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [testperf] poll for APAC friendly time slot 
for weekly meeting

So far, four participants have taken the poll.

See http://doodle.com/poll/fa4nspdf4ta2u7pb

I would suggest we close the vote before this weekend.
--
Yujun


On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:25 PM Yujun Zhang 
> wrote:
Dear testers,

As an action of last weekly meeting, I have created a poll to select an APAC 
friendly time slot.

http://doodle.com/poll/fa4nspdf4ta2u7pb

Please follow the link and vote for your opinion.

If agreed, we shall shift one meeting per month to the new hour.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [daisy4nfv]

2016-08-10 Thread hu . zhijiang 
Hi Chris

Thanks for reminding me. I updated the meeting logistics info at 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/meetings/Meetings


B.R.,
Zhijiang




发件人: Christopher Price 
收件人: , , 
, , , 
, , 
, , 
, 
抄送:   
日期:   2016-08-10 18:38
主题:   Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss]  [daisy4nfv]



Hi Zhijang,

It’s fantastic that you have such a good engagement with your source 
communities and this looks like a good way to maintain that focus.  I 
would only ask that, since this channel is not monitored and logged by our 
collabbot that you ensure the meeting minutes (from the openstack 
collabbot) are linked in your project meeting wiki.
While many of us are unable to attend the various meetings in OPNFV I for 
one like to follow the activities across projects and the minutes, when 
available, are a great way of doing that.

Cheers,
 Chris

On 10/08/16 04:06, "opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org on behalf 
of hu.zhiji...@zte.com.cn"  wrote:

Hi All,
 
Daisy4nfv team IRC meeting has been moved to channel 
"#openstack-meeting 
@freenode", and will be hold every week at 8:00 UTC. Currently, we are 

talking more about upstream project s such as 
openstack/daisycloud-core 
and openstack/kolla, but we will move our concentration to downstream 
daisy4nfv soon. Thanks and please feel free to join the discussion. 
 
 
B.R.,
Zhijiang
 
___
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] [testperf] poll for APAC friendly time slot for weekly meeting

2016-08-10 Thread Yujun Zhang 
So far, four participants have taken the poll.

See http://doodle.com/poll/fa4nspdf4ta2u7pb

I would suggest we close the vote before this weekend.
--
Yujun


On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 10:25 PM Yujun Zhang 
wrote:

> Dear testers,
>
> As an action of last weekly meeting, I have created a poll to select an
> APAC friendly time slot.
>
> http://doodle.com/poll/fa4nspdf4ta2u7pb
>
> Please follow the link and vote for your opinion.
>
> If agreed, we shall shift one meeting per month to the new hour.
>
> --
> Yujun
>
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Update release documentation [opnfvdocs]

2016-08-10 Thread joehuang 
Hello, Sofia,

For multisite, Kingbird is a new service for quota management in multisite 
project, an installation guide without installer support(installers not 
supported it yer) for the new service is provided. User guide/installation 
guide/configuration guide is provided in multisite project, please refer to the 
patch: https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/17895/

Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)


From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] on behalf of Sofia Wallin 
[sofia.wal...@ericsson.com]
Sent: 10 August 2016 20:08
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV (opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org); TSC OPNFV 
(opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org)
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Update release documentation [opnfvdocs]

Hi everyone,

After reviewing the status for Colorado we have agreed that:
Feature projects should produce a ”user guide” for their feature according to: 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/18311/
Scenario’s should also have a brief description provided by scenario owners 
according to: https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/18311/

The installation procedures as discussed on the project call should be handled 
by the installer projects. Use the installation instruction template that was 
used in Brahmaputra together with input from the scenario owners and with links 
to the scenario description documents.

The docs team will continue to work on the overall Colorado documents 
(overview, installation and user guide) however these will link to the project 
documents rather than importing text directly.


Let me know if you have any questions.

BR,
Sofia together with the docs team



___
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

2016-08-10 Thread HU, BIN 
+1.

Let me give an example of IPv6, which Dovetail is using it as a template of 
developing test cases:

Step 1: understand IPv6 feature and its gaps with Mitaka and Boron
* Reference: http://artifacts.opnfv.org/ipv6/docs/userguide/index.html
Step 2: understand current test case coverage in FuncTest and Yardstick
* Reference 1: 
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/ipv6/docs/installationprocedure/index.html#testing-methodology
* Reference 2: 
https://git.opnfv.org/cgit/yardstick/tree/tests/opnfv/test_cases/opnfv_yardstick_tc027.yaml
Step 3: leverage as fully as possible of above test cases
* In case of IPv6, I don't see a reason why current FuncTest and Yardstick 
cannot be reused
* Some changes in Yardstick test code may be needed to replace the 
hard-coded IP address, ext-net name etc. with general parameters
Step 4: identify the gaps of IPv6 use case in Dovetail with the IPv6 project's 
test case coverage in FuncTest and Yardstick
Step 5: If needed, develop additional IPv6 test case in Dovetail *only* to 
cover the gaps identified in Step 4.

This way, we leverage platform testing through FuncTest and Yardstick to ensure 
the platform compliance, while add additional value in Dovetail for C purpose.

Thanks
Bin

-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of SULLIVAN, 
BRYAN L
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 1:43 PM
To: Dave Neary 
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Aug 5 Dovetail meeting notes

*** Security Advisory: This Message Originated Outside of AT ***.
Reference http://cso.att.com/EmailSecurity/IDSP.html for more information.

I would say rather that the Dovetail system needs to be aware of what system 
and components are under test, and select as fully as possible the compatible 
tests from the Functest and Yardstick suites. 

We should not narrow down the scope to just what will run across all 
implementations, even proprietary (e.g. those implementations not supporting 
the open source project VIMs with their published interfaces). There would be 
little in common, and we would be left trying to certify that something meets 
the "spirit" of an NFV/SDN system with any specific interoperability 
expectations. I don't think that is what the C program is about.

On Aug 8, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Dave Neary  wrote:

Hi Bryan,

> On 08/08/2016 10:45 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> I missed the last Dovetail meeting but from what I heard about some of 
> the discussion, I�d like to seek clarification on some things that 
> might have been expressed in the meeting, e.g. that implementations 
> which will go thru C may not be expected to be compatible with 
> existing OPNFV test suites, or at least that not all of the OPNFV test 
> suites, e.g.
> FuncTest and Yardstick, would be expected to be tested on an certified 
> implementations.
> 
> First I�d like to verify that such opinions were expressed (e.g. per 
> Bin�s comment that as a result �Dovetail testing and OPNFV tests 
> are different�), and have them further explained if possible.

Yes, I expressed the view that Functest and Yardstick, as testing projects, 
were designed to stretch the platform - that we will periodically add failing 
functest tests to validate that the tests pass after we make a change to the 
upstream projects under test. They will also include tests which are targeting 
specific scenarios, and are known to fail (and thus will not be run) on other 
scenarios.

In that sense, the Dovetail test suite should be a subset of FuncTest and 
Yardstick which pass on multiple scenarios and installers, and can be run 
unchanged on stacks with (for example) a proprietary SDN controller.

> Second , given that the notes do capture the discussion and concerns 
> correctly, here are some thoughts about that:
> 
> 1)  The C committee is responsible for setting the �what is
> expected� out of a certification, within some flexibility within 
> Doevtail as to what/how/when that can be delivered.
> 
> 2)  Overall, it�s expected that any implementation is compatible
> with the OPNFV test suites as test frameworks. The degree of 
> compatibility with specific test may be limited e.g. if the target 
> hardware/software function focused on by the tests is not supported by 
> the implementation (e.g. an implementation that supports only a 
> specific SDNC), but the significance of such N/As needs to be 
> carefully considered by the C committee or Dovetail.

This is the context for the "subset of..." I mentioned above.

Chris started a page in the wiki a couple of weeks ago to describe the criteria 
for a test case in the Dovetail test framework, I and others added to it: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269

Thanks,
Dave.

> Overall we need to ensure that any aspect of certification can work 
> equally (same end

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

2016-08-10 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L 
Chris,

I either don't understand or don't agree to the statement that the Functest 
isn't designed to be generic, at least as a framework. Certainly where we 
leverage upstream test suites e.g. Tempest/rally they are contextual, but so 
far we have no other cloud VIM in OPNFV except for OpenStack. Some tests might 
be specific to some SDNCs, but again thats just because we are using the 
upstream tests. Functest as a framework though *is* IMO a generic framework, 
and we should leverage it thru Dovetail for testing against expectations for 
the system components under test.

We do not yet AFAICT a concept of a high-level intent framework through which 
we could drive any implementation/VIM, and I don't expect any such framework 
soon. Certainly it's one of the goals of the broader communities e.g. ONF and 
the Multi-SDO Information Modeling activity, but will take a while to 
materialize. So I don't see how we can expect to use a truly generic test suite 
for any comprehensive purpose, anytime soon.

On Aug 8, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Christopher Price 
> wrote:

Hi Bryan,

There was a fair amount of discussion around what Dovetail is testing.
One item I was trying to articulate is that the purpose of the Dovetail suite 
is to validate the compliance of a platform to the behaviors and interfaces 
targeted for compliance validation in OPNFV.  This differs from the purpose of 
Functest and Yardstick which is to validate as thoroughly as possible the 
design of the OPNFV platform.

I have one small concern with your comment: ”The rest of FuncTest is pretty 
generic“
Functest is anything but generic as far as a platform for generic platform 
feature validation is concerned, functest test cases derive mostly from the 
upstream community and do not, by design, provide neutral generic test cases 
for a platform.  This is not a bad thing, it simply does not lend itself to 
creating test cases that should be able to be run over any platform composition.

Our Dovetail suite needs to work even when someone swaps out OpenStack for 
another VIM, or a completely different SDN controller for instance.

/ Chris

From: 
>
 on behalf of "SULLIVAN, BRYAN L" >
Date: Monday 8 August 2016 at 16:45
To: Prakash Ramchandran 
>, 
TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Aug 5 Dovetail meeting notes

Hi all,

I missed the last Dovetail meeting but from what I heard about some of the 
discussion, I’d like to seek clarification on some things that might have been 
expressed in the meeting, e.g. that implementations which will go thru C may 
not be expected to be compatible with existing OPNFV test suites, or at least 
that not all of the OPNFV test suites, e.g. FuncTest and Yardstick, would be 
expected to be tested on an certified implementations.

First I’d like to verify that such opinions were expressed (e.g. per Bin’s 
comment that as a result “Dovetail testing and OPNFV tests are different”), and 
have them further explained if possible.

Second, given that the notes do capture the discussion and concerns correctly, 
here are some thoughts about that:

1)   The C committee is responsible for setting the “what is expected” 
out of a certification, within some flexibility within Doevtail as to 
what/how/when that can be delivered.

2)   Overall, it’s expected that any implementation is compatible with the 
OPNFV test suites as test frameworks. The degree of compatibility with specific 
test may be limited e.g. if the target hardware/software function focused on by 
the tests is not supported by the implementation (e.g. an implementation that 
supports only a specific SDNC), but the significance of such N/As needs to be 
carefully considered by the C committee or Dovetail.

Overall we need to ensure that any aspect of certification can work equally 
(same end result) on an OPNFV-based implementation (meaning a collection of the 
core components as released in some OPNFV release, or even with slight 
variations e.g. different versions of the components), or another 
implementation. We should not leave tests out of the Dovetail scope just 
because they will “not work” on some implementations. There may be good reasons 
for them not to work (the N/As), but if those reasons are simply based upon the 
test design, the platform vendor should provide a compatible version of the 
tests based upon the OPNFV tests, so that we can still certify the platform 
functionally. Examples of this may be:

-  FuncTest

ovIMS (Clearwater IMS) is based upon Orange’s implementation of the 
Cloudify blueprint, using Cloudify as a VNFM. In the process, the Cloudify 
Manager is installed

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

2016-08-10 Thread SULLIVAN, BRYAN L 
I would say rather that the Dovetail system needs to be aware of what system 
and components are under test, and select as fully as possible the compatible 
tests from the Functest and Yardstick suites. 

We should not narrow down the scope to just what will run across all 
implementations, even proprietary (e.g. those implementations not supporting 
the open source project VIMs with their published interfaces). There would be 
little in common, and we would be left trying to certify that something meets 
the "spirit" of an NFV/SDN system with any specific interoperability 
expectations. I don't think that is what the C program is about.

On Aug 8, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Dave Neary  wrote:

Hi Bryan,

> On 08/08/2016 10:45 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> I missed the last Dovetail meeting but from what I heard about some of
> the discussion, I�d like to seek clarification on some things that might
> have been expressed in the meeting, e.g. that implementations which will
> go thru C may not be expected to be compatible with existing OPNFV
> test suites, or at least that not all of the OPNFV test suites, e.g.
> FuncTest and Yardstick, would be expected to be tested on an certified
> implementations.
> 
> First I�d like to verify that such opinions were expressed (e.g. per
> Bin�s comment that as a result �Dovetail testing and OPNFV tests are
> different�), and have them further explained if possible.

Yes, I expressed the view that Functest and Yardstick, as testing
projects, were designed to stretch the platform - that we will
periodically add failing functest tests to validate that the tests pass
after we make a change to the upstream projects under test. They will
also include tests which are targeting specific scenarios, and are known
to fail (and thus will not be run) on other scenarios.

In that sense, the Dovetail test suite should be a subset of FuncTest
and Yardstick which pass on multiple scenarios and installers, and can
be run unchanged on stacks with (for example) a proprietary SDN controller.

> Second , given that the notes do capture the discussion and concerns
> correctly, here are some thoughts about that:
> 
> 1)  The C committee is responsible for setting the �what is
> expected� out of a certification, within some flexibility within
> Doevtail as to what/how/when that can be delivered.
> 
> 2)  Overall, it�s expected that any implementation is compatible
> with the OPNFV test suites as test frameworks. The degree of
> compatibility with specific test may be limited e.g. if the target
> hardware/software function focused on by the tests is not supported by
> the implementation (e.g. an implementation that supports only a specific
> SDNC), but the significance of such N/As needs to be carefully
> considered by the C committee or Dovetail.

This is the context for the "subset of..." I mentioned above.

Chris started a page in the wiki a couple of weeks ago to describe the
criteria for a test case in the Dovetail test framework, I and others
added to it: https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269

Thanks,
Dave.

> Overall we need to ensure that any aspect of certification can work
> equally (same end result) on an OPNFV-based implementation (meaning a
> collection of the core components as released in some OPNFV release, or
> even with slight variations e.g. different versions of the components),
> or another implementation. We should not leave tests out of the Dovetail
> scope just because they will �not work� on some implementations. There
> may be good reasons for them not to work (the N/As), but if those
> reasons are simply based upon the test design, the platform vendor
> should provide a compatible version of the tests based upon the OPNFV
> tests, so that we can still certify the platform functionally. Examples
> of this may be:
> 
> -  FuncTest
> 
> o   vIMS (Clearwater IMS) is based upon Orange�s implementation of the
> Cloudify blueprint, using Cloudify as a VNFM. In the process, the
> Cloudify Manager is installed as a VM under OpenStack, and then executes
> the vIMS blueprint. I see no reason that this should not work
> essentially the same in any other environment. AFAIK, the only possible
> differences, which would need to be addressed by adding options to the
> existing FuncTest code for this, are that e.g. a different approach to
> kicking off the FuncTest framework is needed due to differences in
> Jumphost OS or configuration. But OPNFV should not be responsible for
> accommodating platform implementations that vary in this way; the vendor
> should step up and implement the support so their product can be validated.
> 
> o   The rest of FuncTest is pretty generic and I see no reason why it
> should not be supportable.
> 
> -  Yardstick
> 
> o   As with FuncTest, the framework under which Yardstick operates may
> need some tweaks for compatibility with the vendor implementation. These
> tweaks

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

2016-08-10 Thread Dave Neary 
Hi all,

* Name: Tom Nadeau 
* 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

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Network issues during OPFNV deployment

2016-08-10 Thread Korynkevych, RomanX 
Hi All,

I've trying to deploy OPFNV environment using Fuel (IP: 10.20.0.2) as Jump Host 
based on 
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/functest/brahmaputra/docs/configguide/configguide.pdf
 instructions. Problems occur on the step 3.3 Preparing the Functest 
environment. Execution of ${repos_dir}/functest/docker/prepare_env.sh fails 
because it cannot access 192.168.0.X auth server management network from the 
container. Also 10.20.0.X is not accessible. Anyway I can ping external 
(Internet) and public networks. Does anybody has seen this problem? Is anything 
missed in the instruction?

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

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [bottlenecks] bottlenecks weekly meeting 04-28 (1:00-2:00 UTC, Thursday, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time, Thursday, PDT 18:00-19:00 Wednesday )

2016-08-10 Thread Yuyang (Gabriel) 
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:REQUEST
PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:W. Australia Standard Time
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
ORGANIZER;CN=Yuyang (Gabriel):MAILTO:gabriel.yuy...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Tianhongbo
 :MAILTO:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Lijun (Mat
 thew):MAILTO:matthew.li...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=wangyaogua
 ng (A):MAILTO:sunshine.w...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=liangqi (D
 ):MAILTO:liang...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Liyiting:M
 AILTO:liyit...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=mrebellon@
 sandvine.com:MAILTO:mrebel...@sandvine.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=opnfv-tech
 -disc...@lists.opnfv.org:MAILTO:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
DESCRIPTION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:Hi\,\n\nThe Bottlenecks weekly meeting will be h
 eld at 1:00-2:00 UTC\, Thursday\, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time\, Thursday\, PDT
  18:00-19:00 Wednesday.\nWelcome to join our discussion. Details of this m
 eeting are shown below.\n[X]\nAgenda:\n1.  Bottlenecks Colorado Discus
 sion\n2.  Development proposals in Bottlenecks\n\nMeeting Resources\n\
 nPlease join the meeting from your computer\, tablet or smartphone.\nhttps
 ://global.gotomeeting.com/join/882532573\n\nYou can also dial in using you
 r phone.\nUnited States (Toll-free): 1 877 309 2070\nUnited States : +1 (3
 12) 757-3119\n\n\nAccess Code: 882-532-573\n[X]\nBest\,\nYang\n\n
SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:[bottlenecks] bottlenecks weekly meeting 04-28 (1:00
 -2:00 UTC\, Thursday\, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time\, Thursday\, PDT 18:00-19:0
 0 Wednesday )
DTSTART;TZID=W. Australia Standard Time:20160811T09
DTEND;TZID=W. Australia Standard Time:20160811T10
UID:04008200E00074C5B7101A82E008805DAB353EF3D101000
 01000753BEFAD3593EF468A60EB0EE048F2AC
CLASS:PUBLIC
PRIORITY:5
DTSTAMP:20160810T124754Z
TRANSP:OPAQUE
STATUS:CONFIRMED
SEQUENCE:1
LOCATION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/882532573
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-APPT-SEQUENCE:1
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:-54528
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:TENTATIVE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS:BUSY
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-ALLDAYEVENT:FALSE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INSTTYPE:0
X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE
BEGIN:VALARM
ACTION:DISPLAY
DESCRIPTION:REMINDER
TRIGGER;RELATED=START:-PT15M
END:VALARM
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] Canceled: [bottlenecks] bottlenecks weekly meeting 04-28 (1:00-2:00 UTC, Thursday, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time, Thursday, Pacific time 17:00-18:00 Wednesday )

2016-08-10 Thread Yuyang (Gabriel) 
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:CANCEL
PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:W. Australia Standard Time
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
ORGANIZER;CN=Yuyang (Gabriel):MAILTO:gabriel.yuy...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Yuyang (Ga
 briel):MAILTO:gabriel.yuy...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Tianhongbo
 :MAILTO:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Lijun (Mat
 thew):MAILTO:matthew.li...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=wangyaogua
 ng (A):MAILTO:sunshine.w...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=liangqi (D
 ):MAILTO:liang...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Liyiting:M
 AILTO:liyit...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=mrebellon@
 sandvine.com:MAILTO:mrebel...@sandvine.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=opnfv-tech
 -disc...@lists.opnfv.org:MAILTO:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
DESCRIPTION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:Hi\,\n\nThe Bottlenecks weekly meeting will be h
 eld in held at 1:00-2:00 UTC\, Thursday\, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time\, Thursd
 ay\, Pacific time 17:00-18:00 Wednesday.\nWelcome to join our discussion. 
 Details of this meeting are shown below.\n[X]\nAgenda:\n1.  Bottleneck
 s Colorado Discussion\n2.  Development proposals in Bottlenecks\n\nMee
 ting Resources\n\nPlease join the meeting from your computer\, tablet or s
 martphone.\nhttps://global.gotomeeting.com/join/882532573\n\nYou can also 
 dial in using your phone.\nUnited States (Toll-free): 1 877 309 2070\nUnit
 ed States : +1 (312) 757-3119\n\n\nAccess Code: 882-532-573\n\n\n
SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:Canceled: [bottlenecks] bottlenecks weekly meeting 0
 4-28 (1:00-2:00 UTC\, Thursday\, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time\, Thursday\, Paci
 fic time 17:00-18:00 Wednesday )
DTSTART;TZID=W. Australia Standard Time:20160811T09
DTEND;TZID=W. Australia Standard Time:20160811T10
UID:04008200E00074C5B7101A82E008805DAB353EF3D101000
 01000753BEFAD3593EF468A60EB0EE048F2AC
CLASS:PUBLIC
PRIORITY:1
DTSTAMP:20160810T124627Z
TRANSP:OPAQUE
STATUS:CANCELLED
SEQUENCE:1
LOCATION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/882532573
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-APPT-SEQUENCE:1
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:-544569376
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:FREE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS:FREE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-ALLDAYEVENT:FALSE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:2
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INSTTYPE:0
X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] [bottlenecks] bottlenecks weekly meeting 04-28 (1:00-2:00 UTC, Thursday, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time, Thursday, PDT 18:00-19:00 Wednesday )

2016-08-10 Thread Yuyang (Gabriel) 
BEGIN:VCALENDAR
METHOD:REQUEST
PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:W. Australia Standard Time
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:16010101T00
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
ORGANIZER;CN=Yuyang (Gabriel):MAILTO:gabriel.yuy...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Tianhongbo
 :MAILTO:hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Lijun (Mat
 thew):MAILTO:matthew.li...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=wangyaogua
 ng (A):MAILTO:sunshine.w...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=liangqi (D
 ):MAILTO:liang...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=Liyiting:M
 AILTO:liyit...@huawei.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=mrebellon@
 sandvine.com:MAILTO:mrebel...@sandvine.com
ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=opnfv-tech
 -disc...@lists.opnfv.org:MAILTO:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
DESCRIPTION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:Hi\,\n\nThe Bottlenecks weekly meeting will be h
 eld at 1:00-2:00 UTC\, Thursday\, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time\, Thursday\, PDT
  18:00-19:00 Wednesday.\nWelcome to join our discussion. Details of this m
 eeting are shown below.\n[X]\nAgenda:\n1.  Bottlenecks Colorado Discus
 sion\n2.  Development proposals in Bottlenecks\n\nMeeting Resources\n\
 nPlease join the meeting from your computer\, tablet or smartphone.\nhttps
 ://global.gotomeeting.com/join/882532573\n\nYou can also dial in using you
 r phone.\nUnited States (Toll-free): 1 877 309 2070\nUnited States : +1 (3
 12) 757-3119\n\n\nAccess Code: 882-532-573\n[X]\nBest\,\nYang\n\n
SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:[bottlenecks] bottlenecks weekly meeting 04-28 (1:00
 -2:00 UTC\, Thursday\, 9:00-10:00 Beijing Time\, Thursday\, PDT 18:00-19:0
 0 Wednesday )
DTSTART;TZID=W. Australia Standard Time:20160811T09
DTEND;TZID=W. Australia Standard Time:20160811T10
UID:04008200E00074C5B7101A82E008805DAB353EF3D101000
 01000753BEFAD3593EF468A60EB0EE048F2AC
CLASS:PUBLIC
PRIORITY:5
DTSTAMP:20160810T124329Z
TRANSP:OPAQUE
STATUS:CONFIRMED
SEQUENCE:0
LOCATION;LANGUAGE=zh-CN:https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/882532573
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-APPT-SEQUENCE:0
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:-54528
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:TENTATIVE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS:BUSY
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-ALLDAYEVENT:FALSE
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1
X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INSTTYPE:0
X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE
BEGIN:VALARM
ACTION:DISPLAY
DESCRIPTION:REMINDER
TRIGGER;RELATED=START:-PT15M
END:VALARM
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
___
opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list
opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss

[opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: 答复: [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for the dovetail meeting

2016-08-10 Thread Tianhongbo 
Hi Chris:

Sure.

hongbo

发件人: Christopher Price [mailto:chrispric...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2016年8月10日 20:26
收件人: Tianhongbo; Dave Neary; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
主题: Re: 答复: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail 
for the dovetail meeting

Ok, interesting no-one mentioned that on the last meeting.

Can we discuss it as a group on Friday before changing what was agreed 5 days 
ago?
(Note: releng did create it’s own channel but no longer uses it, rather they 
work on community channels as separate channels are at times not very useful 
for collaborative activities.)

/ Chris


From: Tianhongbo 
>
Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 13:53
To: Christopher Price >, 
Christopher Price 
>, Dave 
Neary >, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: 答复: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail 
for the dovetail meeting

Hi Chris:

Yes, we agreed to use the opnfv-meeting.
But now, there is a requirements that all people like to talk in the IRC all 
time for dovetail like done in the releng or yardstick.
If we use opnfv-meeting, we cannot do that.
That is the problem.

Best Regards

hongbo

发件人: Christopher Price [mailto:chrispric...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2016年8月10日 18:34
收件人: Tianhongbo; Christopher Price; Dave Neary; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
主题: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for 
the dovetail meeting

Hi Hongbo,

If I recall, there were comments on the last meeting that people preferred to 
use opnfv-meeting.  I had not heard anyone speak to the desire to create 
another IRC channel for this meeting series.

My only thought is that it seems unnecessary to create another channel, our 
committers indicated a desire to stay on opnfv-meeting and it is unclear why 
this has come up again.

/ Chris

From: 
>
 on behalf of Tianhongbo 
>
Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 03:02
To: Christopher Price 
>, Dave 
Neary >, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for 
the dovetail meeting

Hi all:

With the development of dovetail, there are more people involved in.
we used the opnfv-meeting before.
In order to help people to discuss whenever and wherever, I suggest to use the 
#opnfv-dovetail for dovetail discussion.
If we have dovetail own IRC, it can avoid the conflict.
We tested it, it works.

Any comments?

Best Regards

hongbo
___ 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] 答复: [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for the dovetail meeting

2016-08-10 Thread Christopher Price 
Ok, interesting no-one mentioned that on the last meeting.  

 

Can we discuss it as a group on Friday before changing what was agreed 5 days 
ago?  

(Note: releng did create it’s own channel but no longer uses it, rather they 
work on community channels as separate channels are at times not very useful 
for collaborative activities.)

 

/ Chris

 

 

From: Tianhongbo 
Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 13:53
To: Christopher Price , Christopher Price 
, Dave Neary , TECH-DISCUSS 
OPNFV 
Subject: 答复: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail 
for the dovetail meeting

 

Hi Chris:

 

Yes, we agreed to use the opnfv-meeting.

But now, there is a requirements that all people like to talk in the IRC all 
time for dovetail like done in the releng or yardstick.

If we use opnfv-meeting, we cannot do that.

That is the problem.

 

Best Regards

 

hongbo

 

发件人: Christopher Price [mailto:chrispric...@gmail.com] 
发送时间: 2016年8月10日 18:34
收件人: Tianhongbo; Christopher Price; Dave Neary; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
主题: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for 
the dovetail meeting

 

Hi Hongbo,

 

If I recall, there were comments on the last meeting that people preferred to 
use opnfv-meeting.  I had not heard anyone speak to the desire to create 
another IRC channel for this meeting series.

 

My only thought is that it seems unnecessary to create another channel, our 
committers indicated a desire to stay on opnfv-meeting and it is unclear why 
this has come up again.

 

/ Chris

 

From:  on behalf of Tianhongbo 

Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 03:02
To: Christopher Price , Dave Neary 
, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for 
the dovetail meeting

 

Hi all:

 

With the development of dovetail, there are more people involved in. 

we used the opnfv-meeting before.

In order to help people to discuss whenever and wherever, I suggest to use the 
#opnfv-dovetail for dovetail discussion.

If we have dovetail own IRC, it can avoid the conflict.

We tested it, it works.

 

Any comments?

 

Best Regards

 

hongbo

___ 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] Working with the docs toolchain locally on your laptop.

2016-08-10 Thread Christopher Price 
Hi Frank,

 

That’s not possible with the instructions/scripts provided.  There may be some 
black magic that could be done but I am really not familiar enough to provide 
it.

 

In general though, the docs rendering is not a heavyweight activity and it 
should not take more than a few seconds to run the project rather than just one 
document.

 

/ Chris

 

From:  on behalf of "Frank 
Brockners (fbrockne)" 
Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 13:28
To: Christopher Price , TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Working with the docs toolchain locally on 
your laptop.

 

Hi Chris, 

 

thanks for the pointer. Is there a way to just check whether a single file 
builds/parses correctly – rather than always building the entire project?

 

Thanks, Frank

 

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Christopher 
Price
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. August 2016 12:29
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Working with the docs toolchain locally on your 
laptop.

 

Hi Community,

 

While our CI system provides a complete docs renderer that gives you up to date 
links to your documentation when you push a patch for review it may be useful 
for you to work with the toolchain locally while doing you Colorado 
documentation.  

 

This has been made rather simple by our champion of docs scripting Ryota and 
the procedure is kept up to date and relevant at this link:

http://artifacts.opnfv.org/opnfvdocs/docs/how-to-use-docs/documentation-example.html#testing
 

 

If you would like to render your docs as you go, please try the toolchain 
above.  

If you prefer you can also simply push a docs patch and follow the links 
provided on the review page.

 

Regards,

Chris

___ 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] Update release documentation [opnfvdocs]

2016-08-10 Thread Sofia Wallin 
Hi everyone,

After reviewing the status for Colorado we have agreed that:
Feature projects should produce a ”user guide” for their feature according to: 
https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/18311/
Scenario’s should also have a brief description provided by scenario owners 
according to: https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/18311/

The installation procedures as discussed on the project call should be handled 
by the installer projects. Use the installation instruction template that was 
used in Brahmaputra together with input from the scenario owners and with links 
to the scenario description documents.

The docs team will continue to work on the overall Colorado documents 
(overview, installation and user guide) however these will link to the project 
documents rather than importing text directly.


Let me know if you have any questions.

BR,
Sofia together with the docs team



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

[opnfv-tech-discuss] 答复: [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for the dovetail meeting

2016-08-10 Thread Tianhongbo 
Hi Chris:

Yes, we agreed to use the opnfv-meeting.
But now, there is a requirements that all people like to talk in the IRC all 
time for dovetail like done in the releng or yardstick.
If we use opnfv-meeting, we cannot do that.
That is the problem.

Best Regards

hongbo

发件人: Christopher Price [mailto:chrispric...@gmail.com]
发送时间: 2016年8月10日 18:34
收件人: Tianhongbo; Christopher Price; Dave Neary; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
主题: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for 
the dovetail meeting

Hi Hongbo,

If I recall, there were comments on the last meeting that people preferred to 
use opnfv-meeting.  I had not heard anyone speak to the desire to create 
another IRC channel for this meeting series.

My only thought is that it seems unnecessary to create another channel, our 
committers indicated a desire to stay on opnfv-meeting and it is unclear why 
this has come up again.

/ Chris

From: 
>
 on behalf of Tianhongbo 
>
Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 03:02
To: Christopher Price 
>, Dave 
Neary >, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for 
the dovetail meeting

Hi all:

With the development of dovetail, there are more people involved in.
we used the opnfv-meeting before.
In order to help people to discuss whenever and wherever, I suggest to use the 
#opnfv-dovetail for dovetail discussion.
If we have dovetail own IRC, it can avoid the conflict.
We tested it, it works.

Any comments?

Best Regards

hongbo
___ 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] Working with the docs toolchain locally on your laptop.

2016-08-10 Thread Frank Brockners (fbrockne) 
Just to clarify: I’d like to use the OPNFV tool chain on a set of specific 
files only and see whether they render correctly – as opposed to just use 
rst2html (which is what I currently do).

Thanks, Frank

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Frank 
Brockners (fbrockne)
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. August 2016 13:28
To: Christopher Price ; TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Working with the docs toolchain locally on 
your laptop.

Hi Chris,

thanks for the pointer. Is there a way to just check whether a single file 
builds/parses correctly – rather than always building the entire project?

Thanks, Frank

From: 
opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
 [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Christopher 
Price
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. August 2016 12:29
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
>
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Working with the docs toolchain locally on your 
laptop.

Hi Community,

While our CI system provides a complete docs renderer that gives you up to date 
links to your documentation when you push a patch for review it may be useful 
for you to work with the toolchain locally while doing you Colorado 
documentation.

This has been made rather simple by our champion of docs scripting Ryota and 
the procedure is kept up to date and relevant at this link:
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/opnfvdocs/docs/how-to-use-docs/documentation-example.html#testing

If you would like to render your docs as you go, please try the toolchain above.
If you prefer you can also simply push a docs patch and follow the links 
provided on the review page.

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

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Working with the docs toolchain locally on your laptop.

2016-08-10 Thread Frank Brockners (fbrockne) 
Hi Chris,

thanks for the pointer. Is there a way to just check whether a single file 
builds/parses correctly – rather than always building the entire project?

Thanks, Frank

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Christopher 
Price
Sent: Mittwoch, 10. August 2016 12:29
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] Working with the docs toolchain locally on your 
laptop.

Hi Community,

While our CI system provides a complete docs renderer that gives you up to date 
links to your documentation when you push a patch for review it may be useful 
for you to work with the toolchain locally while doing you Colorado 
documentation.

This has been made rather simple by our champion of docs scripting Ryota and 
the procedure is kept up to date and relevant at this link:
http://artifacts.opnfv.org/opnfvdocs/docs/how-to-use-docs/documentation-example.html#testing

If you would like to render your docs as you go, please try the toolchain above.
If you prefer you can also simply push a docs patch and follow the links 
provided on the review page.

Regards,
Chris
___
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]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for the dovetail meeting

2016-08-10 Thread Christopher Price 
Hi Hongbo,

 

If I recall, there were comments on the last meeting that people preferred to 
use opnfv-meeting.  I had not heard anyone speak to the desire to create 
another IRC channel for this meeting series.

 

My only thought is that it seems unnecessary to create another channel, our 
committers indicated a desire to stay on opnfv-meeting and it is unclear why 
this has come up again.

 

/ Chris

 

From:  on behalf of Tianhongbo 

Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 03:02
To: Christopher Price , Dave Neary 
, TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]suggest to use the #opnfv-dovetail for 
the dovetail meeting

 

Hi all:

 

With the development of dovetail, there are more people involved in. 

we used the opnfv-meeting before.

In order to help people to discuss whenever and wherever, I suggest to use the 
#opnfv-dovetail for dovetail discussion.

If we have dovetail own IRC, it can avoid the conflict.

We tested it, it works.

 

Any comments?

 

Best Regards

 

hongbo

___ 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] [Dovetail] Aug 5 Dovetail meeting notes

2016-08-10 Thread Tianhongbo 
Hi all:

Thanks for the deep suggestion and discussion.

The Dovetail and C have discussed many times about some of the questions.
I will add the related slides and works on the 
I created a wiki page for these questions discussions.
It will help others who missed the discussions.

If you have any suggestion and ideas about the dovetail certification, welcome 
to add on the wikipage.
https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/high+level+topics

I add two more topics on the wiki page:
1) scripts managements 
   Since the dovetail will deliverable the test cases and scripts. The scripts 
are used to validate the testcases and may be related to the test projects.

2) how to choose the testcases(test cases criteria)
This one may be added in the the test cases discussion wiki page.

for more details on test cases, please refer to : 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269

I will add the related slides and works on the wiki.

Best Regards

hongbo


-Original Message-
From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
Sent: 2016年8月9日 3:17
To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L; Prakash Ramchandran; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [Dovetail] Aug 5 Dovetail meeting notes

Hi Bryan,

On 08/08/2016 10:45 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
> I missed the last Dovetail meeting but from what I heard about some of 
> the discussion, I’d like to seek clarification on some things that 
> might have been expressed in the meeting, e.g. that implementations 
> which will go thru C may not be expected to be compatible with 
> existing OPNFV test suites, or at least that not all of the OPNFV test 
> suites, e.g.
> FuncTest and Yardstick, would be expected to be tested on an certified 
> implementations.
> 
> First I’d like to verify that such opinions were expressed (e.g. per 
> Bin’s comment that as a result “Dovetail testing and OPNFV tests are 
> different”), and have them further explained if possible.

Yes, I expressed the view that Functest and Yardstick, as testing projects, 
were designed to stretch the platform - that we will periodically add failing 
functest tests to validate that the tests pass after we make a change to the 
upstream projects under test. They will also include tests which are targeting 
specific scenarios, and are known to fail (and thus will not be run) on other 
scenarios.

In that sense, the Dovetail test suite should be a subset of FuncTest and 
Yardstick which pass on multiple scenarios and installers, and can be run 
unchanged on stacks with (for example) a proprietary SDN controller.

> Second , given that the notes do capture the discussion and concerns 
> correctly, here are some thoughts about that:
> 
> 1)  The C committee is responsible for setting the “what is
> expected” out of a certification, within some flexibility within 
> Doevtail as to what/how/when that can be delivered.
> 
> 2)  Overall, it’s expected that any implementation is compatible
> with the OPNFV test suites as test frameworks. The degree of 
> compatibility with specific test may be limited e.g. if the target 
> hardware/software function focused on by the tests is not supported by 
> the implementation (e.g. an implementation that supports only a 
> specific SDNC), but the significance of such N/As needs to be 
> carefully considered by the C committee or Dovetail.

This is the context for the "subset of..." I mentioned above.

Chris started a page in the wiki a couple of weeks ago to describe the criteria 
for a test case in the Dovetail test framework, I and others added to it: 
https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269

Thanks,
Dave.

> Overall we need to ensure that any aspect of certification can work 
> equally (same end result) on an OPNFV-based implementation (meaning a 
> collection of the core components as released in some OPNFV release, 
> or even with slight variations e.g. different versions of the 
> components), or another implementation. We should not leave tests out 
> of the Dovetail scope just because they will “not work” on some 
> implementations. There may be good reasons for them not to work (the 
> N/As), but if those reasons are simply based upon the test design, the 
> platform vendor should provide a compatible version of the tests based 
> upon the OPNFV tests, so that we can still certify the platform 
> functionally. Examples of this may be:
> 
> -  FuncTest
> 
> o   vIMS (Clearwater IMS) is based upon Orange’s implementation of the
> Cloudify blueprint, using Cloudify as a VNFM. In the process, the 
> Cloudify Manager is installed as a VM under OpenStack, and then 
> executes the vIMS blueprint. I see no reason that this should not work 
> essentially the same in any other environment. AFAIK, the only 
> possible differences, which would need to be addressed by adding 
> options to the existing FuncTest code for this, are that e.g. a 
>

Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Topics for this weeks call

2016-08-10 Thread Christopher Price 
Hi Hongbo,

 

As these topics relate to the “test suites requirements” area I have added them 
as topics to the existing wiki page.  As these are “blank slate” questions I 
have left it open for input and not added much to the wiki at this stage.

Naming convention:

https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269#Dovetailtestcaserequirementsandstructure(draft)-Testsuitenamingconvention
 

Results, storage and security:

https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269#Dovetailtestcaserequirementsandstructure(draft)-Testresultcompilation,storageandsecurity
 

 

Dovetailers please feel free to add and share your thoughts on the wiki, we can 
discuss the options and input on the weekly call.

 

Regards,

    Chris

 

From:  on behalf of Tianhongbo 

Date: Wednesday 10 August 2016 at 02:53
To: Christopher Price , TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV 

Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Topics for this weeks call

 

Hi all:

 

With the developing of the dovetail, many interesting topics will emerge.

I will put these on the agenda.

 

To Chris: could you please help us to create a new wikipage for these topics 
discussion and sharing

 

Best Regards

 

hongbo

 

 

 

From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org 
[mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Christopher 
Price
Sent: 2016年8月9日 16:39
To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail] Topics for this weeks call

 

Hi Dovetailers,

 

I’d like to raise a couple of topics for this weeks call that have arisen 
during the work to start to incubate our test cases documentation activity.

1)  Test case naming and structure for dovetail, external facing naming 
sequences for compliance and certification test cases.

2)  Test execution identification, results evaluation, storage, 
identification and security for dovetail compliance and certification test 
cases.

 

These topics have a lot in common with activities in YardStick/FuncTest et al. 
however it may be DoveTail has additional needs that are not yet considered in 
the testing project work.  I’d like to understand what we need, identify the 
gaps, and start to discuss these with our testing working group.

 

/ Chris

___ 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