Re: [icnrg] Interop testing?

Börje Ohlman <Borje.Ohlman@abc.se> Tue, 23 July 2019 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <Borje.Ohlman@abc.se>
X-Original-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B4312045F for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e_rP5ZZV5Lwm for <icnrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hekla.abc.se (hekla.abc.se [62.80.200.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37B3D1204DC for <icnrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [90.232.49.36] (host-90-232-49-36.mobileonline.telia.com [90.232.49.36]) by hekla.abc.se (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 9cc26d1c (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 18:54:18 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: =?utf-8?Q?B=C3=B6rje_Ohlman?= <Borje.Ohlman@abc.se>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16F203)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR15MB32726D142A48FFA67925CB0EADC70@BYAPR15MB3272.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:54:14 -0400
Cc: icnrg <icnrg@irtf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <81CBAAB9-9808-468F-B725-B4382A8295A5@abc.se>
References: <BYAPR15MB32726D142A48FFA67925CB0EADC70@BYAPR15MB3272.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Mosko, Marc <mmosko@parc.com>" <mmosko@parc.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg/rMIsliv1gjl80NotkhbFGSs6bWA>
Subject: Re: [icnrg] Interop testing?
X-BeenThere: icnrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Information-Centric Networking research group discussion list <icnrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg>, <mailto:icnrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 16:54:42 -0000

Sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should go for doing a hackathon in Singapore instead of an interim meeting. 

     Börje 

> 23 juli 2019 kl. 12:23 skrev Mosko, Marc <mmosko@parc.com> <mmosko@parc.com>om>:
> 
> Now that we have the RFCs out, do we want to have a round of interop / conformance testing? 
> My idea is that there would be separate client library tests and forwarder tests.
> 
> For the forwarder tests, we would generate some test vectors of Interests and Content Objects and expected results (i.e. should fail or should succeed).  We could then write test rigs for each implementation (cicn, ccn-lite, cefore, etc.), connect them in topologies and run various consumers & publishers.  It may be that a single test rig could be used for all implementations.  For example, use a ccn-lite forwarder (A) and cicn (B) with a test rig (T) connected T-A-B-A-B-T.
> 
> For client library tests, I'm not sure what would be a good way to do that.  There's a few ideas, but I'd like to hear what people think of this.
> 
> Marc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> icnrg mailing list
> icnrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg