[dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, August 22nd

[dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, August 22nd

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2022 bytes --]

Distribution list:
- We agreed to use the ci@dpdk.org mailing list for any future discussion on the lab, so I've used it for these minutes. I've copied those who were on the previous distribution for the minutes, in case anybody has not yet subscribed to ci@dpdk.org. If you haven't subscribed yet, you can do so at: http://dpdk.org/ml.

Lab Contract:
- The draft contract, with changes based on the LF review, is attached. Others should review this and return comments to Bob (ren@iol.unh.edu) by Friday 
September 1st. We'll discuss any significant issues at our next meeting on September 5th.
- The UNH-IOL Usage Agreement is also attached, and is also available at: https://www.iol.unh.edu/sites/default/files/charters/unh-iol-usage-agreement.pdf. People may want to review this as well.

Hardware:
- NXP and Intel hardware is in procurement. Mellanox hardware is ready but needs internal approval before shipping to UNH.

CI:
- The script Mellanox have been working on to identify the target repository for a patch set is being reviewed internally and should be sent to the mailing list soon.
- Fangfang has sent a patch that includes a reference doc and some other scripts. Thomas will review this.

Test Results:
- Discussed whether we always need to provide absolute numbers for test results, or if delta values can be provided in some cases. Providing delta values may be useful for new hardware or new tests that have not yet been fully tuned, where vendors do not want to make absolute numbers public.
- Agreed that we should be able to decide per vendor and per test case whether absolute or delta numbers should be provided. This should be configured as part of the test script, so that the result is either the absolute performance number or a delta comparing this to a previous reference value.

Future meetings:
- Agreed to continue these meetings on a bi-weekly basis for now. If anybody else on this mailing list wants to join, let me know and I'll forward the meeting details. 



[-- Attachment #2: DPDK_SOW_Draft_2017_08_08-mkd.docx --]
[-- Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document, Size: 53590 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: unh-iol-usage-agreement.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 216178 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, August 22nd

[Trishan de Lanerolle]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2400 bytes --]

Hi,
As we work to move the paperwork forward, have you had an opportunity to
connect with your legal teams to review the documents.

The usage agreement in particular is directly applicable to members
contributing hardware.

Please let me know your feedback/red line changes by end of the week if
possible.

Thanks,
Trishan



On Aug 22, 2017 5:07 PM, "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com> wrote:

Distribution list:
- We agreed to use the ci@dpdk.org mailing list for any future discussion
on the lab, so I've used it for these minutes. I've copied those who were
on the previous distribution for the minutes, in case anybody has not yet
subscribed to ci@dpdk.org. If you haven't subscribed yet, you can do so at:
http://dpdk.org/ml.

Lab Contract:
- The draft contract, with changes based on the LF review, is attached.
Others should review this and return comments to Bob (ren@iol.unh.edu) by
Friday
September 1st. We'll discuss any significant issues at our next meeting on
September 5th.
- The UNH-IOL Usage Agreement is also attached, and is also available at:
https://www.iol.unh.edu/sites/default/files/charters/unh-
iol-usage-agreement.pdf. People may want to review this as well.

Hardware:
- NXP and Intel hardware is in procurement. Mellanox hardware is ready but
needs internal approval before shipping to UNH.

CI:
- The script Mellanox have been working on to identify the target
repository for a patch set is being reviewed internally and should be sent
to the mailing list soon.
- Fangfang has sent a patch that includes a reference doc and some other
scripts. Thomas will review this.

Test Results:
- Discussed whether we always need to provide absolute numbers for test
results, or if delta values can be provided in some cases. Providing delta
values may be useful for new hardware or new tests that have not yet been
fully tuned, where vendors do not want to make absolute numbers public.
- Agreed that we should be able to decide per vendor and per test case
whether absolute or delta numbers should be provided. This should be
configured as part of the test script, so that the result is either the
absolute performance number or a delta comparing this to a previous
reference value.

Future meetings:
- Agreed to continue these meetings on a bi-weekly basis for now. If
anybody else on this mailing list wants to join, let me know and I'll
forward the meeting details.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3355 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, August 22nd

[Shepard Siegel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2895 bytes --]

Trishan,

Thank you for that reminder. We have reviewed the UNH Agreement and
currently have no redline feedback from our attorney. If you don't hear
from us by the end of this week; that's an implicit accept for Atomic Rules.

best, Shep

Shepard Siegel, CTO
atomicrules.com



On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 1:03 PM, Trishan de Lanerolle <
tdelanerolle@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> As we work to move the paperwork forward, have you had an opportunity to
> connect with your legal teams to review the documents.
>
> The usage agreement in particular is directly applicable to members
> contributing hardware.
>
> Please let me know your feedback/red line changes by end of the week if
> possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Trishan
>
>
>
> On Aug 22, 2017 5:07 PM, "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Distribution list:
> - We agreed to use the ci@dpdk.org mailing list for any future discussion
> on the lab, so I've used it for these minutes. I've copied those who were
> on the previous distribution for the minutes, in case anybody has not yet
> subscribed to ci@dpdk.org. If you haven't subscribed yet, you can do so
> at: http://dpdk.org/ml.
>
> Lab Contract:
> - The draft contract, with changes based on the LF review, is attached.
> Others should review this and return comments to Bob (ren@iol.unh.edu) by
> Friday
> September 1st. We'll discuss any significant issues at our next meeting on
> September 5th.
> - The UNH-IOL Usage Agreement is also attached, and is also available at:
> https://www.iol.unh.edu/sites/default/files/charters/unh-iol
> -usage-agreement.pdf. People may want to review this as well.
>
> Hardware:
> - NXP and Intel hardware is in procurement. Mellanox hardware is ready but
> needs internal approval before shipping to UNH.
>
> CI:
> - The script Mellanox have been working on to identify the target
> repository for a patch set is being reviewed internally and should be sent
> to the mailing list soon.
> - Fangfang has sent a patch that includes a reference doc and some other
> scripts. Thomas will review this.
>
> Test Results:
> - Discussed whether we always need to provide absolute numbers for test
> results, or if delta values can be provided in some cases. Providing delta
> values may be useful for new hardware or new tests that have not yet been
> fully tuned, where vendors do not want to make absolute numbers public.
> - Agreed that we should be able to decide per vendor and per test case
> whether absolute or delta numbers should be provided. This should be
> configured as part of the test script, so that the result is either the
> absolute performance number or a delta comparing this to a previous
> reference value.
>
> Future meetings:
> - Agreed to continue these meetings on a bi-weekly basis for now. If
> anybody else on this mailing list wants to join, let me know and I'll
> forward the meeting details.
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4276 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-ci] Minutes of DPDK Lab Meeting, August 22nd

[Thomas Monjalon]

Hi,

30/08/2017 19:03, Trishan de Lanerolle:
> Please let me know your feedback/red line changes by end of the week if
> possible.

I do not understand the intellectual property section,
probably because I am not a lawyer :)

I have a suggestion: it would be simpler to say that all lab software work
must be Open Source (GPL would be fine).