Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30
I’m not sure this is the correct assessment.
While the ODL controller presents an IETF based northbound and ONOS presents a
variation I believe they can both be addressed using a Tosca VNFFG descriptor.
Thus the internal interface deviations should not necessarily stop us being
able to execute compliance level test cases. I may be wrong not being
completely aware of the ONOS specific implementation, but I had assumed based
on previous conversations that it would support a Tosca graph definition.
I would like to see OPNFV trend toward the adoption of standard interfaces but
that is not always what we find in some upstream implementations, nor are these
internal interfaces what we want to evaluate in DoveTail.
For SFC, the question remains if there is upstream support in any of the
solutions or if we remain dependent on hanging patches. While I hardly think
SFC is urgent for us to address it does hint to the level of detail and
analysis this project will be required to do for every test case we propose.
(I’m still working on my anlaysis of the image CRUD test cases)
/ Chris
On 2016-10-13, 03:44, "Tianhongbo" <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Wenjing:
In the requirements, it said that all test cases need to run by multiple
SDN controllers.
But actually, some test cases cannot be used on multiple SDN controllers.
Take the SFC as example, the SFC based on the ODL will not work on the
environment which has the ONOS.
Best Regards
hongbo
-Original Message-
From: Wenjing Chu
Sent: 2016年10月13日 4:53
To: Dave Neary; Tianhongbo; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes
9/30
I agree, Dave, on the need for focused attention to agree on the test case
criteria page. It will help clarify and unblock a lot of pending tasks. Let's
work on that this week. (I also would like to clean up the overall wiki too, so
info is organized more logically and easy to find.)
Hongbo, can you explain or give an example of what kind of difficulty one
may face related to multiple SDN controllers, as you noted in your comment?
Intuitively, I think if we have two (or more) valid options in the opnfv
reference platform for a given need/component, either should be acceptable IF
there is no common API level in the reference platform.
Regards
Wenjing
-Original Message-
From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 11:28 AM
To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Tianhongbo
<hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price
<christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes
9/30
Hi Wenjing,
On 10/11/2016 01:05 PM, Wenjing Chu wrote:
> Were you trying to reply to the dovetail agenda email or the minutes
email?
>
> In either case, the topic of finalizing test case criteria was listed. In
last week's call, because of low attendance, we didn't take on any meaty
subject, and focused on reviewing what we needed improvement around the wiki
and meeting logistics etc. but the subject of finalizing the test case criteria
(was noted down in the minutes by me as "test case requirement", sorry for
swapping the terms, will correct it.) did come up as we were looking over that
wiki page.
Thank you for the clarification.
My hope was that we could agree over email, in advance of this week's
meeting, what we need to discuss, and what we can agree on without discussion
now.
My expectation is that this will allow a productive and focussed meeting on
Friday.
> I suggest we spend a few minutes to recap of what was discussed last week
as we review the minutes.
I think this is a good idea. I would also like to have some discussion of
the open items I listed earlier by email.
Thank you,
Dave.
>
> Regards
> Wenjing
>
> -Original Message-
> From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org
> [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave
> Neary
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:45 AM
> To: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>;
> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price
> <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com>
> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting
> minutes 9/30
>
> Apologies - replied to the wrong meeting minutes email. The email I
replied to was where this task was documented as a priority work item.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave.
>
> On 10/11/2016 12:44 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
>> Hello Hongbo,
Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30
I've taken care of the action item of cleaning up the basic wiki layout and consistency. https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/dovetail/Dovetail+Home We still need to refresh some of the important content quickly. Removing obsolete pages is not allowed for me, I think. We may need the page owner to do that. Regards Wenjing -Original Message- From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 11:28 AM To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30 Hi Wenjing, On 10/11/2016 01:05 PM, Wenjing Chu wrote: > Were you trying to reply to the dovetail agenda email or the minutes email? > > In either case, the topic of finalizing test case criteria was listed. In > last week's call, because of low attendance, we didn't take on any meaty > subject, and focused on reviewing what we needed improvement around the wiki > and meeting logistics etc. but the subject of finalizing the test case > criteria (was noted down in the minutes by me as "test case requirement", > sorry for swapping the terms, will correct it.) did come up as we were > looking over that wiki page. Thank you for the clarification. My hope was that we could agree over email, in advance of this week's meeting, what we need to discuss, and what we can agree on without discussion now. My expectation is that this will allow a productive and focussed meeting on Friday. > I suggest we spend a few minutes to recap of what was discussed last week as > we review the minutes. I think this is a good idea. I would also like to have some discussion of the open items I listed earlier by email. Thank you, Dave. > > Regards > Wenjing > > -Original Message- > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave > Neary > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:45 AM > To: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price > <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting > minutes 9/30 > > Apologies - replied to the wrong meeting minutes email. The email I replied > to was where this task was documented as a priority work item. > > Thanks, > Dave. > > On 10/11/2016 12:44 PM, Dave Neary wrote: >> Hello Hongbo, >> >> I see that Chris and myself were both absent last week. For my part, >> I was at an event and had difficulties joining. >> >> I also notice that one item outstanding from the previous week was >> not discussed, and I would like to make progress on that issue this week. >> >> We agree that we should finalize the test criteria for Dovetail, and >> that we should do this as soon as possible, before we have added too >> many test cases to the Dovetail test suite. >> >> Looking at the draft document: >> https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269 >> it seems to me that there are a number of areas where we need >> discussion and agreement. >> >> 1. Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream - there was >> some discussion on this point when it was proposed, we should ensure >> that we have agreement 2. Requirement that tests pass on multiple >> scenarios in OPNFV test infrastructure - You have expressed concerns >> that this is difficult because of multiple SDN controllers 3. >> Required documentation for test cases - we currently do not have test >> cases which satisfy all of the documentation requirements - or the >> requested requirement from the C committee that the test case >> should be sufficiently well described to allow manual execution 4. >> "Out of scope" - Chris has stated that this section should be removed >> from the document, we should discuss and agree whether this is correct. >> >> Are there any other potential areas of disagreement? If there are, we >> need to document them, and figure out how we converge on an agreed >> document. This document can then be used to qualify proposed test >> cases and verify that they fulfill the requirements. >> >> Thank you, >> Dave. >> >> >> >> On 10/03/2016 09:08 PM, Tianhongbo wrote: >>> Hi all: >>> >>> >>> >>> That is the dovetail weekly meeting minutes: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes: >&
Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30
Hi Wenjing: In the requirements, it said that all test cases need to run by multiple SDN controllers. But actually, some test cases cannot be used on multiple SDN controllers. Take the SFC as example, the SFC based on the ODL will not work on the environment which has the ONOS. Best Regards hongbo -Original Message- From: Wenjing Chu Sent: 2016年10月13日 4:53 To: Dave Neary; Tianhongbo; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30 I agree, Dave, on the need for focused attention to agree on the test case criteria page. It will help clarify and unblock a lot of pending tasks. Let's work on that this week. (I also would like to clean up the overall wiki too, so info is organized more logically and easy to find.) Hongbo, can you explain or give an example of what kind of difficulty one may face related to multiple SDN controllers, as you noted in your comment? Intuitively, I think if we have two (or more) valid options in the opnfv reference platform for a given need/component, either should be acceptable IF there is no common API level in the reference platform. Regards Wenjing -Original Message- From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 11:28 AM To: Wenjing Chu <wenjing@huawei.com>; Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30 Hi Wenjing, On 10/11/2016 01:05 PM, Wenjing Chu wrote: > Were you trying to reply to the dovetail agenda email or the minutes email? > > In either case, the topic of finalizing test case criteria was listed. In > last week's call, because of low attendance, we didn't take on any meaty > subject, and focused on reviewing what we needed improvement around the wiki > and meeting logistics etc. but the subject of finalizing the test case > criteria (was noted down in the minutes by me as "test case requirement", > sorry for swapping the terms, will correct it.) did come up as we were > looking over that wiki page. Thank you for the clarification. My hope was that we could agree over email, in advance of this week's meeting, what we need to discuss, and what we can agree on without discussion now. My expectation is that this will allow a productive and focussed meeting on Friday. > I suggest we spend a few minutes to recap of what was discussed last week as > we review the minutes. I think this is a good idea. I would also like to have some discussion of the open items I listed earlier by email. Thank you, Dave. > > Regards > Wenjing > > -Original Message- > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave > Neary > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:45 AM > To: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price > <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting > minutes 9/30 > > Apologies - replied to the wrong meeting minutes email. The email I replied > to was where this task was documented as a priority work item. > > Thanks, > Dave. > > On 10/11/2016 12:44 PM, Dave Neary wrote: >> Hello Hongbo, >> >> I see that Chris and myself were both absent last week. For my part, >> I was at an event and had difficulties joining. >> >> I also notice that one item outstanding from the previous week was >> not discussed, and I would like to make progress on that issue this week. >> >> We agree that we should finalize the test criteria for Dovetail, and >> that we should do this as soon as possible, before we have added too >> many test cases to the Dovetail test suite. >> >> Looking at the draft document: >> https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269 >> it seems to me that there are a number of areas where we need >> discussion and agreement. >> >> 1. Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream - there was >> some discussion on this point when it was proposed, we should ensure >> that we have agreement 2. Requirement that tests pass on multiple >> scenarios in OPNFV test infrastructure - You have expressed concerns >> that this is difficult because of multiple SDN controllers 3. >> Required documentation for test cases - we currently do not have test >> cases which satisfy all of the documentation requirements - or the >> requested requirement from the C committee that the test case >> should be sufficiently well described to allow manual execution 4.
Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30
I will add these on the agenda Hongbo -Original Message- From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com] Sent: 2016年10月12日 2:28 To: Wenjing Chu; Tianhongbo; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30 Hi Wenjing, On 10/11/2016 01:05 PM, Wenjing Chu wrote: > Were you trying to reply to the dovetail agenda email or the minutes email? > > In either case, the topic of finalizing test case criteria was listed. In > last week's call, because of low attendance, we didn't take on any meaty > subject, and focused on reviewing what we needed improvement around the wiki > and meeting logistics etc. but the subject of finalizing the test case > criteria (was noted down in the minutes by me as "test case requirement", > sorry for swapping the terms, will correct it.) did come up as we were > looking over that wiki page. Thank you for the clarification. My hope was that we could agree over email, in advance of this week's meeting, what we need to discuss, and what we can agree on without discussion now. My expectation is that this will allow a productive and focussed meeting on Friday. > I suggest we spend a few minutes to recap of what was discussed last week as > we review the minutes. I think this is a good idea. I would also like to have some discussion of the open items I listed earlier by email. Thank you, Dave. > > Regards > Wenjing > > -Original Message- > From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org > [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave > Neary > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:45 AM > To: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price > <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> > Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting > minutes 9/30 > > Apologies - replied to the wrong meeting minutes email. The email I replied > to was where this task was documented as a priority work item. > > Thanks, > Dave. > > On 10/11/2016 12:44 PM, Dave Neary wrote: >> Hello Hongbo, >> >> I see that Chris and myself were both absent last week. For my part, >> I was at an event and had difficulties joining. >> >> I also notice that one item outstanding from the previous week was >> not discussed, and I would like to make progress on that issue this week. >> >> We agree that we should finalize the test criteria for Dovetail, and >> that we should do this as soon as possible, before we have added too >> many test cases to the Dovetail test suite. >> >> Looking at the draft document: >> https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269 >> it seems to me that there are a number of areas where we need >> discussion and agreement. >> >> 1. Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream - there was >> some discussion on this point when it was proposed, we should ensure >> that we have agreement 2. Requirement that tests pass on multiple >> scenarios in OPNFV test infrastructure - You have expressed concerns >> that this is difficult because of multiple SDN controllers 3. >> Required documentation for test cases - we currently do not have test >> cases which satisfy all of the documentation requirements - or the >> requested requirement from the C committee that the test case >> should be sufficiently well described to allow manual execution 4. >> "Out of scope" - Chris has stated that this section should be removed >> from the document, we should discuss and agree whether this is correct. >> >> Are there any other potential areas of disagreement? If there are, we >> need to document them, and figure out how we converge on an agreed >> document. This document can then be used to qualify proposed test >> cases and verify that they fulfill the requirements. >> >> Thank you, >> Dave. >> >> >> >> On 10/03/2016 09:08 PM, Tianhongbo wrote: >>> Hi all: >>> >>> >>> >>> That is the dovetail weekly meeting minutes: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes: >>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opn >>> f >>> v-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.html >>> >>> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes (text): >>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opn >>> f >>> v-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.txt >>> >>> 11:00:09 - collabot: Log: >>> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.o
Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30
Hi Dave Were you trying to reply to the dovetail agenda email or the minutes email? In either case, the topic of finalizing test case criteria was listed. In last week's call, because of low attendance, we didn't take on any meaty subject, and focused on reviewing what we needed improvement around the wiki and meeting logistics etc. but the subject of finalizing the test case criteria (was noted down in the minutes by me as "test case requirement", sorry for swapping the terms, will correct it.) did come up as we were looking over that wiki page. I suggest we spend a few minutes to recap of what was discussed last week as we review the minutes. Regards Wenjing -Original Message- From: opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss-boun...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:45 AM To: Tianhongbo <hongbo.tianhon...@huawei.com>; opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; Chris Price <christopher.pr...@ericsson.com> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30 Apologies - replied to the wrong meeting minutes email. The email I replied to was where this task was documented as a priority work item. Thanks, Dave. On 10/11/2016 12:44 PM, Dave Neary wrote: > Hello Hongbo, > > I see that Chris and myself were both absent last week. For my part, I > was at an event and had difficulties joining. > > I also notice that one item outstanding from the previous week was not > discussed, and I would like to make progress on that issue this week. > > We agree that we should finalize the test criteria for Dovetail, and > that we should do this as soon as possible, before we have added too > many test cases to the Dovetail test suite. > > Looking at the draft document: > https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269 > it seems to me that there are a number of areas where we need > discussion and agreement. > > 1. Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream - there was some > discussion on this point when it was proposed, we should ensure that > we have agreement 2. Requirement that tests pass on multiple scenarios > in OPNFV test infrastructure - You have expressed concerns that this > is difficult because of multiple SDN controllers 3. Required > documentation for test cases - we currently do not have test cases > which satisfy all of the documentation requirements - or the requested > requirement from the C committee that the test case should be > sufficiently well described to allow manual execution 4. "Out of > scope" - Chris has stated that this section should be removed from the > document, we should discuss and agree whether this is correct. > > Are there any other potential areas of disagreement? If there are, we > need to document them, and figure out how we converge on an agreed > document. This document can then be used to qualify proposed test > cases and verify that they fulfill the requirements. > > Thank you, > Dave. > > > > On 10/03/2016 09:08 PM, Tianhongbo wrote: >> Hi all: >> >> >> >> That is the dovetail weekly meeting minutes: >> >> >> >> >> >> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes: >> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnf >> v-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.html >> >> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes (text): >> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnf >> v-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.txt >> >> 11:00:09 - collabot: Log: >> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnf >> v-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.log.html >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> hongbo >> >> >> >> ___ >> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list >> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org >> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss >> > -- 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 opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30
Apologies - replied to the wrong meeting minutes email. The email I replied to was where this task was documented as a priority work item. Thanks, Dave. On 10/11/2016 12:44 PM, Dave Neary wrote: > Hello Hongbo, > > I see that Chris and myself were both absent last week. For my part, I > was at an event and had difficulties joining. > > I also notice that one item outstanding from the previous week was not > discussed, and I would like to make progress on that issue this week. > > We agree that we should finalize the test criteria for Dovetail, and > that we should do this as soon as possible, before we have added too > many test cases to the Dovetail test suite. > > Looking at the draft document: > https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269 > it seems to me that there are a number of areas where we need discussion > and agreement. > > 1. Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream - there was some > discussion on this point when it was proposed, we should ensure that we > have agreement > 2. Requirement that tests pass on multiple scenarios in OPNFV test > infrastructure - You have expressed concerns that this is difficult > because of multiple SDN controllers > 3. Required documentation for test cases - we currently do not have test > cases which satisfy all of the documentation requirements - or the > requested requirement from the C committee that the test case should > be sufficiently well described to allow manual execution > 4. "Out of scope" - Chris has stated that this section should be removed > from the document, we should discuss and agree whether this is correct. > > Are there any other potential areas of disagreement? If there are, we > need to document them, and figure out how we converge on an agreed > document. This document can then be used to qualify proposed test cases > and verify that they fulfill the requirements. > > Thank you, > Dave. > > > > On 10/03/2016 09:08 PM, Tianhongbo wrote: >> Hi all: >> >> >> >> That is the dovetail weekly meeting minutes: >> >> >> >> >> >> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes: >> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.html >> >> 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes (text): >> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.txt >> >> 11:00:09 - collabot: Log: >> http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.log.html >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> hongbo >> >> >> >> ___ >> opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list >> opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org >> https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss >> > -- 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
Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss] [dovetail]dovetail weekly meeting minutes 9/30
Hello Hongbo, I see that Chris and myself were both absent last week. For my part, I was at an event and had difficulties joining. I also notice that one item outstanding from the previous week was not discussed, and I would like to make progress on that issue this week. We agree that we should finalize the test criteria for Dovetail, and that we should do this as soon as possible, before we have added too many test cases to the Dovetail test suite. Looking at the draft document: https://wiki.opnfv.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=6827269 it seems to me that there are a number of areas where we need discussion and agreement. 1. Requirement that all patches be submitted upstream - there was some discussion on this point when it was proposed, we should ensure that we have agreement 2. Requirement that tests pass on multiple scenarios in OPNFV test infrastructure - You have expressed concerns that this is difficult because of multiple SDN controllers 3. Required documentation for test cases - we currently do not have test cases which satisfy all of the documentation requirements - or the requested requirement from the C committee that the test case should be sufficiently well described to allow manual execution 4. "Out of scope" - Chris has stated that this section should be removed from the document, we should discuss and agree whether this is correct. Are there any other potential areas of disagreement? If there are, we need to document them, and figure out how we converge on an agreed document. This document can then be used to qualify proposed test cases and verify that they fulfill the requirements. Thank you, Dave. On 10/03/2016 09:08 PM, Tianhongbo wrote: > Hi all: > > > > That is the dovetail weekly meeting minutes: > > > > > > 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes: > http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.html > > 11:00:09 - collabot: Minutes (text): > http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.txt > > 11:00:09 - collabot: Log: > http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-meeting/2016/opnfv-meeting.2016-09-30-14.00.log.html > > > > Best regards > > > > hongbo > > > > ___ > opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list > opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org > https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss > -- 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
