1 files changed, 388 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/testing/user/cvpaddendum/index.rst b/docs/testing/user/cvpaddendum/index.rst
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ee356ff9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/testing/user/cvpaddendum/index.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,388 @@
+.. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
+.. License.
+.. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
+.. (c) Intel and others
+
+====================================================================
+Compliance Verification Program - Guidelines Addendum for Danube
+====================================================================
+
+.. toctree::
+   :maxdepth: 2
+
+
+Introduction
+============
+
+This addendum provides a high-level description of the testing scope and
+pass/fail criteria used in the Compliance Verification Program (CVP) for the
+OPNFV Danube release. This information is intended as an overview for CVP
+testers and for the Dovetail Project to help guide test-tool and test-case
+development for the OPNFV Danube release. The Dovetail project is responsible for documenting
+test-case specifications as well as implementing the CVP tool-chain through collaboration
+with the OPNFV testing community. CVP testing focuses on establishing the
+ability of the System Under Test (SUT) to perform NFVI and VIM operations and support
+Service Provider oriented features that ensure manageable, resilient and secure
+networks.
+
+
+Meaning of Compliance
+=====================
+
+OPNFV Compliance indicates adherence to NFV platform behavior defined as
+various platform capabilities or features to prepare, instantiate, operate and remove
+VNFs running on the NFVI. Danube compliance evaluates the ability of a platform
+to support Service Provider network capabilities and workloads that are
+supported in the OPNFV platform as of this release. Compliance test cases shall
+be designated as compulsory or optional based on the maturity of OPNFV
+capabilities as well as industry expectations. Compulsory test cases may for
+example include NFVI management capabilities whereas tests for certain
+high-availability features may be deemed as optional.
+
+Test coverage and pass/fail criteria are
+designed to ensure an acceptable level of compliance but not be so restrictive
+as to disqualify variations in platform implementations, capabilities and features.
+
+
+SUT Assumptions
+===============
+
+Assumptions about the System Under Test (SUT) include ...
+
+  - The minimal specification of physical infrastructure, including controller
+    nodes, compute nodes and networks, is defined by the Pharos specification
+    [2].
+  - The SUT is fully deployed and operational, i.e. SUT deployment tools are
+    out of scope of testing.
+
+
+Scope of Testing
+================
+
+The OPNFV CVP Guidelines [1], as approved by the Board of Directors, outlines
+the key objectives of the CVP as follows:
+  - Help build the market for
+     - OPNFV based infrastructure
+     - applications designed to run on that infrastructure
+  - Reduce adoption risks for end-users
+  - Decrease testing costs by verifying hardware and software platform
+    interfaces and components
+  - Enhance interoperability
+
+The guidelines further directs the scope to be constrained to "features,
+capabilities, components, and interfaces included in an OPNFV release that are
+generally available in the industry (e.g., through adoption by an upstream
+community)", and that compliance verification is evaluated using "functional tests
+that focus on defined interfaces and/or behaviors without regard to the
+the implementation of the underlying system under test".
+
+OPNFV provides a broad range of capabilities, including the reference platform itself
+as well as tools-chains and methodologies for building infrastructures, and
+deploying and testing the platform.
+Not all these aspects are in scope for CVP and not all functions and
+components are tested in the initial version of CVP. For example, the deployment tools
+for the SUT and CI/CD toolchain are currently out of scope.
+Similarly, performance benchmarking related testing is also out of scope or
+for further study. Newer functional areas such as MANO (outside of APIs in the NFVI and
+VIM) are still developing and are for future considerations.
+
+General Approach
+----------------
+
+In order to meet the above objectives for CVP, we aim to follow a general approach
+by first identifying the overall requirements for all stake-holders,
+then analyzing what OPNFV and the upstream communities can effectively test and verify
+presently to derive an initial working scope for CVP, and to recommend what the
+community should strive to achieve in future releases.
+
+The overall requirements for CVP can be cateorized by the basic cloud
+capabilities representing common operations needed by basic VNFs, and additional
+requirements for VNFs that go beyond the common cloud capabilities including
+functional extensions, operational capabilities and additional carrier grade
+requirements.
+
+For the basic NFV requirements, we will analyze the required test cases,
+leverage or improve upon existing test cases in OPNFV projects
+and upstream projects whenever we can, and bridge the gaps when we must, to meet
+these basic requirements.
+
+We are not yet ready to support requirements
+such as hardware portability, carrier grade performance, fault management and other
+operational features, security, MANO and VNF verification.
+These areas are being studied for future considerations.
+
+In some areas, we will start with a limited level of verification
+initially, constrained by what community resources are able to support at this
+time, but still serve a basic need that is not being fulfilled elsewhere.
+In these areas, we bring significant value to the community we
+serve by starting a new area of verification, breaking new ground and
+expanding it in the future.
+
+In other areas, the functions being verified have yet to reach
+wide adoption but are seen as important requirements in NFV,
+or features are only needed for specific NFV use cases but
+an industry consensus about the APIs and behaviors is still deemed beneficial. In such
+cases, we plan to incorporate the test areas as optional. An optional test
+area will not have to be run or passed in order to achieve compliance.
+Optional tests provide an opportunity for vendors to demonstrate compliance with specific OPNFV
+features beyond the mandatory test scope.
+
+Analysis of Scope
+-----------------
+
+Following on these high level objectives and the identified general approach,
+we seek to define the initial verification scope by the analysis summarized
+in the following categories:
+
+1. Basic Cloud Capabilities
+
+The intent of these tests is to verify that the SUT has the required
+capabilities that a basic VNF needs, and these capabilities are implemented
+in a way that enables this basic VNF to run on any OPNFV compliant
+deployment.
+
+A basic VNF can be thought of as a single virtual machine that is networked
+and can perform the simplest network functions, for example, a simple forwarding
+gateway, or a set of such virtual machines connected only by simple virtual network
+services. Running such basic VNF leads to a set of common requirements, including:
+  - image management (Refstack testing Glance API)
+  - identity management (Refstack testing Keystone Identity API)
+  - virtual compute (Refstack testing Nova Compute API)
+  - virtual storage (Refstack testing Cinder API)
+  - virtual networks (Refstack testing Neutron Network API)
+  - forwarding packets through virtual networks in data path
+  - filtering packets based on security rules and port security in data path
+  - dynamic network runtime operations through the life of a VNF (e.g. attach/detach,
+    enable/disable, read stats)
+  - correct behavior after common virtual machine life cycles events (e.g.
+    suspend/resume, reboot, migrate)
+  - simple virtual machine resource scheduling on multiple nodes
+
+OPNFV mainly supports Openstack as the VIM up to the Danube release. The
+VNFs used in the CVP program, and features in scope for the program which are
+considered to be basic to all VNFs, require commercial Openstack distributions
+to support a common basic level of cloud capabilities, and to be compliant
+to a common specification for these capabilities. This requirement significantly
+overlaps with Openstack community's Interop working group's goals, but they are not
+identical. The CVP runs the Openstack Refstack-Compute test cases to verify
+compliance to the basic common API requirements of cloud
+management functions and VNF (as a VM) management for OPNFV.
+Additional NFV specific requirements are added in network data path validation,
+packet filtering by security group rules and port security, life cycle runtime events of
+virtual networks, multiple networks in a topology, validation
+of VNF's functional state after common lifecylce events including reboot, pause,
+suspense, stop/start and cold migration. In addition, the
+basic requirement also verifies that the SUT can allocate VNF resources based
+on simple anti-affinity rules.
+
+The combined test cases help to ensure that these basic operations are always
+supported by a compliant platform and they adhere to
+a common standard to enable portability across OPNFV compliant platforms.
+
+2. NFV specific functional requirements
+
+NFV has functional requirements beyond the basic common cloud
+capabilities, esp. in the networking area. Examples like SDNVPN, IPv6, SFC may
+be considered additional NFV requirements beyond general purpose cloud
+computing. These feature requirements expand beyond common Openstack (or other
+VIM) requirements. OPNFV CVP will incorporate test cases to verify
+compliance in these areas as they become mature. Because these extensions
+may impose new API demands, maturity and industry adoption is a prerequisite for
+making them a mandatory requirement for OPNFV compliance. At the time of Danube,
+we have not identified a new functional area that is mandatory for CVP.
+In the meantime, CVP
+intends to offer tests in some of these areas as an optional extension of the test
+report to be submitted for review, noting that passing these tests will not be
+required to pass OPNFV compliance verification.
+
+SDNVPN is relevant due to the wide adoption of MPLS/BGP based VPNs in wide area
+networks, which makes it necessary for data centers hosting VNFs to be able to
+seamlessly interconnect with such networks. IPv6 is a high priority service provider
+requirement to ease IP addressing and operational issues. SFC is also an important
+NFV requirement, however its implementation has not yet been accepted or adopted
+in the upstream at the time of Danube.
+
+3. High availability
+
+High availability is a common carrier grade requirement. Availability of a
+platform involves many aspects of the SUT, for example hardware or lower layer
+system failures or system overloads, and is also highly dependent on
+configurations. The current OPNFV high availability verification focuses on
+Openstack control service failures and resource overloads, and verifies service
+continuity when the system encounters such failures or resource overloads, and
+also verifies the system heals after a failure episode within a reasonable time
+window. These service HA capabilities are commonly adopted in the industry
+and should be a mandatory requirement.
+
+The current test cases in HA cover the basic area of failure and resource
+overload conditions for a cloud platform's service availability, including all
+of the basic cloud capability services, and basic compute and storage loads,
+so it is a meaningful first step for CVP. We expect additional high availability
+scenarios be extended in future releases.
+
+4. Resiliency
+
+Resiliency testing involves stressing the SUT and verifying its ability
+to absorb stress conditions and still provide an acceptable level of service.
+Resiliency is an important requirement for end-users.
+
+The OPNFV testing projects have started testing
+OPNFV system resiliency in
+the Danube release that can be used to provide limited coverage in this area.
+However, this is a relatively new test methodology in OPNFV, additional study
+and testing experiences are still needed. We defer the resilency testing to
+future CVP releases.
+
+5. Security
+
+Security is among the top priorities as a carrier grade requirement by the
+end-users. Some of the basic common functions, including virtual network isolation,
+security groups, port security and role based access control are already covered as
+part of the basic cloud capabilities that are verified in CVP. These test cases
+however do not yet cover the basic required security capabilities expected of an end-user
+deployment. It is an area that we should address in the near future, to define
+a common set of requirements and develop test cases for verifying those
+requirements.
+
+Another common requirement is security vulnerability scanning.
+While the OPNFV security project integrated tools for security vulnerability
+scanning, this has not been fully analyzed or exercised in Danube release.
+This area needs further work to identify the required level of security for the
+purpose of OPNFV in order to be integrated into the CVP. End-user inputs on
+specific requirements in security is needed.
+
+6. Service assurance
+
+Service assurance (SA) is a broad area of concern for reliability of the NFVI/VIM
+and VNFs, and depends upon multiple subsystems of an NFV platform for essential
+information and control mechanisms. These subsystems include telemetry, fault management
+(e.g. alarms), performance management, audits, and control mechanisms such as security
+and configuration policies.
+
+The current Danube release implements some enabling capabilities in NFVI/VIM
+such as telemetry, policy, and fault management. However, the specification of expected
+system components, behavior and the test cases to verify them have not yet
+been adequately developed. We will therefore not be testing this area at this time
+but defer to future study.
+
+7. Use case testing
+
+More complex interactions among multiple VNFs and between VNFs and the cloud
+platform can be better exercised through selected more realistic use cases.
+
+End-users see use case level testing as a significant tool in
+verifying OPNFV compliance because it validates design patterns and support
+for the types of NFVI features that users
+care about. There are a lot of projects in OPNFV developing use cases
+and sample VNFs, however most are still in early phase and require further
+enhancements to become useful additions to the CVP.
+
+Many of these use case test cases do not add new API requirements to the SUT per se, but
+exercise aspects of the SUT's functional capabilities in more complex ways.
+Other use cases, such as SDNVPN, will require additional API level extension,
+and to clearly separate the two, we will categorize the latter as
+NFV specific functional requirements and not simply as use cases.
+
+Examples such as vIMS, or those which are not yet available
+in Danube release e.g. vCPE,
+will be valuable additions to the CVP. These use cases need to
+be widely accepted, and since they are more complex, using these VNFs for CVP demands
+higher level of community resources to implement, analyze and document these VNFs.
+
+Use case testing is not ready for CVP at the time of Danube, but can be incorporated
+in Euphrates or as a future roadmap area.
+
+Finally, we take a preliminary look at future roadmap ideas that may be helpful
+for the community to plan and pull resources around.
+
+8. Future CVP scope enhancements
+
+Some possible areas of enhancement for the CVP scope in subsequent releases include:
+
+  - service assurance, as discussed above
+  - use case testing, as discussed above
+  - platform in-place upgrade
+  - API backward compatibility / micro-versioning
+  - workload migration
+  - multisite federation
+  - platform operational insights, e.g. telemetry, logging
+  - efficiency, e.g. hardware and energy footprint of the platform
+  - interoperability with workload automation platforms e.g. ONAP
+
+And enhancements may also be made to the existing test areas as well,
+particularly those with limited coverage in this release.
+
+Summary of Test Scope
+---------------------
+
+The above analysis concludes with the following scope summarized below.
+These tested areas represent significant advancement in the
+direction to meet the CVP's objectives and end-user expectations, and is a
+good basis for the initial phase of CVP.
+
+- Test Area: common cloud capabilities
+  - Openstack Refstack-compute test cases
+    Image, Identity, Compute, Network, Storage
+  - OPNFV-Functest/vPing, including both user data and ssh
+  - Port security and security groups
+  - VM lifecycle events
+  - VM networking
+  - VM resource scheduling
+  - Mandatory
+
+- Test Area: SDNVPN
+  - OPNFV-SDNVPN
+  - Optional
+
+- Test Area: IPv6
+  - OPNFV-IPv6
+  - Limited to overlay tests, v6Ping
+  - Optional
+
+- Test Area: High Availability
+  - OPNFV-HA
+  - OPNFV-Yardstick
+  - Limited to service continuity verification on control services
+  - Mandatory
+
+- Test Area: Resilency with Load
+  - OPNFV-Bottlenecks
+  - OPNFV-Yardstick
+  - Limited to compute resource load testing
+  - Optional
+
+Note 1: While the current scope of compliance includes functional verification
+of certain performance-enhancing NFVI features, no performance measurements or
+assessment of performance capabilities are included as of this release.
+
+Note 2: The SUT is limited to NFVI and VIM functions. While testing MANO
+component capabilities is out of scope, certain APIs exposed towards MANO are
+used by the current OPNFV compliance testing suite. MANO and other operational
+elements may be part of the test infrastructure; for example used for workload
+deployment and provisioning.
+
+Criteria for Awarding Compliance
+================================
+
+This section provides guidance on compliance criteia for each test area. The
+criteria described here are high-level, detailed pass/fail metrics are
+documented in Dovetail test specifications.
+
+1. All mandatory test cases must pass.
+
+Exceptions to this rule may be legitimate, e.g. due to imperfect test tools or
+reasonable circumstances that we can not foresee. These exceptions must be
+documented and accepted by the reviewers.
+
+2. Optional test cases are optional to run. Its test results, pass or fail,
+   do not impact compliance.
+
+Applicants who choose to run the optional test cases can include the results
+of the optional test cases to highlight the additional compliance.
+
+References
+==========
+
+[1] The OPNFV CVP Guidelines v.16 [Editor's note: link to be provided.]
+[2] Pharos specification xxx [Editor's note: link to be provided.]
+