Versions Compared

Old Version 25

changes.mady.by.user Cedric Ollivier

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Cedric Ollivier

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • 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!
  • 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? 

...