Subject: [Dime] Diameter Interop & Diameter Interoperability Test Suite Document

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:34:50 +0200

Hi all,

to perform the interop testing in a more structured way we once wrote 
the following Diameter Interoperability Test Suite document:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dime/draft-fajardo-dime-interop-test-suite-01.txt

It was updated after the last interop based on the feedback we got; more 
updates might, however, be needed.

Since we are looking ahead to the next interop it would be good to get 
some feedback to agree on the test scenarios ahead of time. This also 
gives us the chance to more clearly summarize the outcome of the event 
in the report. It might also give participants the chance to prepare 
some scripts and to agree on the scope of the tests.

Ciao
Hannes

_______________________________________________
DiME mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

---

From: Victor Fajardo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 10:55:23 -0400

Hi all,

Just to add on what Hannes has mentioned, it maybe best to get more 
feedback on the following:

1. Which applications/interfaces are people more interested in testing, 
especially if they are not currently present in the document.
2. The test scenarios you would want to perform on new/existing 
applications that are not covered by the existing document.
3. If the test topologies present in the document is sufficient.

Based on the last bake off, some time was spent on setting up initial 
connectivity so I think it maybe best if we also think about how to 
prepare the test environment to reduce this initial chaos and it may 
also help in preparing for more complex topologies. We may also want to 
think about more formal test procedures which deals with issues such as 
setting up test pairs especially in this second interop where previous 
participants may have more mature implementations than newer participants.

regards,
victor

> It was updated after the last interop based on the feedback we got; 
> more updates might, however, be needed.
>