...
- Cedric Ollivier How can it help the short term issues? an implementation is needed for the conformance on the VNF side and we need additional relevant resources in both sides: specifications (CNTT) and OPNFV (OPNFV)
- Cedric Ollivier How would be leverage on it in a long term view? We shouldn't reinvent the wheel every release - the current model works and the separation between CNTT and OPNFV is clear for a few main CNTT contributors
- What happens when CNTT develops a requirement in, say, RI-1?
- does CNTT goes directly to prospective OPNFV project and get it implemented (via that project PTL).
- how will the implementation link back to CNTT releases?
- Cedric Ollivier : CNTT RC lists the deliverables (containers/tags/testcases) from OPNFV. What's the additional point here? Could we detail the gap targeted?
- Will each project have their own release cycle (with appropriate baggings) or will OPNFV have an overall release cadence ? how does the model work?
- Cedric Ollivier I think the model works already.
- CNTT is in charge of test case description/selection and playbooks (see RC) and then CNTT selects the test cases from OPNFV according to them.
- OVP should implement the test result verification from the archive produced by CNTT playbook - Compared to first OVM OVP model the test case selection is now in RC
- or will CNTT has to follow some kind of process to get their requirements implemented?
- Cedric Ollivier : we may consider the classical opensource model here and then the answer could be straightforward: by putting developpers
- Cedric Ollivier : opensource cannot follow a subcontractor model by design
- or will OPNFV itself regularly get CNTT releases and find the right OPNFV projects to implement any new requirements.
- via CIRV? Cedric Ollivier: CIRV is mostly an umbrella for incubation projects. It should be done at the project level possibly between CNTT RI/RC leaders and the PTLs/core developpers
- what is the role of OPNFV TSC on all this? who is accountable for what?
- we need to talk about accountability and make it clear who is accountable for what!
- does CNTT goes directly to prospective OPNFV project and get it implemented (via that project PTL).
- How does OVP fit into this matrix?
- Given the GSMA process is it mostly a consumer and ratifier of the output from CNTT, or does it have a role in providing feedback? I.e. how can this be set up to be a two way street?
...
Does it mean that RI-1 would be strictly removed from CNTT repository?
Why Yes why not to consider considering Airship as an implementation amongst others which tries to implement the CNTT requirements (RC is currently rather verified thanks to Functest SUT and Field trials).
I would agree to fully remove RI1 from CNTT but CNTT needs a reference implementation somewhere which passes RC successfully for the next steps (conformance of VNF/CNF).
By the way, it's becoming urgent to take CNTT results into account to find the best path (RI1 doesn't pass RC - we can't leverage on the existing resources allocated to Functest for the VNF conformance)
If FMO targets to improve the process, having an implementation fulfilling CNTT requirements is a very short term key issue
...