Hi folks!
So at this week's blocker review meeting, the fact that we don't have explicit networking requirements in the release criteria really started to bite us. In the past we have squeezed networking-related issues in under other criteria, but for some issues that's really difficult, notably VPN issues. So, we agreed we should draft some explicit networking criteria.
This turns out to be a big area and quite hard to cover (who'd've thought!), but here is at least a first draft for us to start from. My proposal would be to add this to the Basic criteria. I have left out some wikitext stuff from the proposal for clarity; I'd add it back in on actually applying the proposed changes. It's just formatting stuff, nothing that'd change the meaning. Anyone have thoughts, complaints, alternative approaches, supplements? Thanks!
=== Network requirements ===
Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included).
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
Footnote titled "Supported hardware": Supported network hardware is hardware for which the Fedora kernel includes drivers and, where necessary, for which a firmware package is available. If support for a commonly-used piece or type of network hardware that would usually be present is omitted, that may constitute a violation of this criterion, after consideration of the [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ|hardware-dependent- issues|normal factors for hardware-dependent issues]]. Similarly, violations of this criteria that are hardware or configuration dependent are, as usual, subject to consideration of those factors when determining whether they are release-blocking
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VNC servers with typical configurations.
Footnote title "Supported servers and configurations": As there are many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more likely it is to be a blocker.
That all sounds reasonable to me. Does wifi fall into this as well?
Stephen
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi folks!
So at this week's blocker review meeting, the fact that we don't have explicit networking requirements in the release criteria really started to bite us. In the past we have squeezed networking-related issues in under other criteria, but for some issues that's really difficult, notably VPN issues. So, we agreed we should draft some explicit networking criteria.
This turns out to be a big area and quite hard to cover (who'd've thought!), but here is at least a first draft for us to start from. My proposal would be to add this to the Basic criteria. I have left out some wikitext stuff from the proposal for clarity; I'd add it back in on actually applying the proposed changes. It's just formatting stuff, nothing that'd change the meaning. Anyone have thoughts, complaints, alternative approaches, supplements? Thanks!
=== Network requirements ===
Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included).
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
Footnote titled "Supported hardware": Supported network hardware is hardware for which the Fedora kernel includes drivers and, where necessary, for which a firmware package is available. If support for a commonly-used piece or type of network hardware that would usually be present is omitted, that may constitute a violation of this criterion, after consideration of the [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ|hardware-dependent- issues|normal factors for hardware-dependent issues]]. Similarly, violations of this criteria that are hardware or configuration dependent are, as usual, subject to consideration of those factors when determining whether they are release-blocking
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc- supported VNC servers with typical configurations.
Footnote title "Supported servers and configurations": As there are many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more likely it is to be a blocker. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for
release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working
connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc- supported
VNC servers with typical configurations.
VNC == VPN?
Also, should we add WireGuard to this list for future-proofing?
Thanks,
On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 15:50 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for
release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working
connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc- supported
VNC servers with typical configurations.
VNC == VPN?
Oh, yes. Thanks.
Also, should we add WireGuard to this list for future-proofing?
It doesn't really make sense to add things to the release criteria for future proofing. If it's important *now* we should add it. Otherwise, no.
Do NetworkManager and its current KDE and GNOME front ends support it currently?
On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 16:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 15:50 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for
release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working
connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc- supported
VNC servers with typical configurations.
VNC == VPN?
Oh, yes. Thanks.
Also, should we add WireGuard to this list for future-proofing?
It doesn't really make sense to add things to the release criteria for future proofing. If it's important *now* we should add it. Otherwise, no.
Do NetworkManager and its current KDE and GNOME front ends support it currently?
IIRC not - wireguard-tools is available, but setting up a connection is manual or needs to use the GUI/CLI from a VPN provider such as Mullvad
https://www.wireguard.com/quickstart/ https://mullvad.net/nl/help/install-mullvad-app-linux/ https://mullvad.net/en/help/how-use-mullvad-cli/
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:12 AM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
=== Network requirements ===
Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included).
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds.
I'm a bit confused here. If you specifically say "for the console and for release-blocking desktops", does that mean it doesn't apply to the installer? Because at the top you say it applies to both, but here it sounds very specific.
If it applies to the installer, does this mean that *all* ways to configure this in the installer must work (i.e. kernel cmdline, kickstart, gui, tui)? That seems quite demanding for a Basic criterion.
Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
Footnote titled "Supported hardware": Supported network hardware is hardware for which the Fedora kernel includes drivers and, where necessary, for which a firmware package is available. If support for a commonly-used piece or type of network hardware that would usually be present is omitted, that may constitute a violation of this criterion, after consideration of the [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ|hardware-dependent- issues|normal factors for hardware-dependent issues]]. Similarly, violations of this criteria that are hardware or configuration dependent are, as usual, subject to consideration of those factors when determining whether they are release-blocking
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VNC servers with typical configurations.
Just out of curiosity, why isn't this "OpenVPN, openconnect and vpnc VPN servers", but instead it is "-supported" for the latter two?
Footnote title "Supported servers and configurations": As there are many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more likely it is to be a blocker. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.or...
On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 15:44 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 2:12 AM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
=== Network requirements ===
Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included).
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds.
I'm a bit confused here. If you specifically say "for the console and for release-blocking desktops", does that mean it doesn't apply to the installer? Because at the top you say it applies to both, but here it sounds very specific.
No, I didn't intend that, I was just making sure to cover both console and desktop. We can make it "for the console, for release-blocking desktops and for installer environments" if you like.
If it applies to the installer, does this mean that *all* ways to configure this in the installer must work (i.e. kernel cmdline, kickstart, gui, tui)? That seems quite demanding for a Basic criterion.
That's kind of a tricky one, because I agree it's broad, but on the other hand there are situations where you kinda need each of them. You can't always have a monitor and a human to do it interactively in the install environment, and if you're retrieving a kickstart or the installer environment itself (after a PXE boot, say) over the network, you need the kernel cmdline case to work.
So, I mean, it's difficult. We *could* split it across Basic and Final, but I can't immediately see a clear rationale for how to do that. Any ideas? I guess we could look at what the criteria require for things like kickstart and PXE boot and try to align them...
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VNC servers with typical configurations.
Just out of curiosity, why isn't this "OpenVPN, openconnect and vpnc VPN servers", but instead it is "-supported" for the latter two?
Well, openconnect supports multiple different VPN servers. "OpenConnect is an SSL VPN client initially created to support Cisco's AnyConnect SSL VPN. It has since been ported to support the Juniper SSL VPN (which is now known as Pulse Connect Secure), and the Palo Alto Networks GlobalProtect SSL VPN."
vpnc only really supports Cisco IPsec servers, but they aren't really called "vpnc VPN servers". vpnc is just the name of the third-party client for such VPNs that NetworkManager-vpnc wraps. So "vpnc-supported servers" seems more correct than "vpnc servers".
Looking at https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/NetworkManager/VPN , there are several other plugins my draft doesn't list. I'm not sure if any of them is common enough that we should block on it. Anyone have an idea about that?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:37 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds.
I'm a bit confused here. If you specifically say "for the console and for release-blocking desktops", does that mean it doesn't apply to the installer? Because at the top you say it applies to both, but here it sounds very specific.
No, I didn't intend that, I was just making sure to cover both console and desktop. We can make it "for the console, for release-blocking desktops and for installer environments" if you like.
I guess it would help to avoid the confusion.
If it applies to the installer, does this mean that *all* ways to
configure
this in the installer must work (i.e. kernel cmdline, kickstart, gui,
tui)?
That seems quite demanding for a Basic criterion.
That's kind of a tricky one, because I agree it's broad, but on the other hand there are situations where you kinda need each of them. You can't always have a monitor and a human to do it interactively in the install environment, and if you're retrieving a kickstart or the installer environment itself (after a PXE boot, say) over the network, you need the kernel cmdline case to work.
So, I mean, it's difficult. We *could* split it across Basic and Final, but I can't immediately see a clear rationale for how to do that. Any ideas? I guess we could look at what the criteria require for things like kickstart and PXE boot and try to align them...
PXE is Beta, kickstart *delivery* is Beta. There are no further criteria related to kickstarts, I think I had I have an #action to propose that criterion that's a few years old now.
The "obvious" split would be to require user-related actions (gui/tui) sooner and professional-related actions later (kickstarts, cmdline). But at the same time, specifically for the installer, the professional-related actions are pretty important for QA to deliver a decent test coverage. Which coincidentally is also Beta ("Bug hinders execution of required Beta test plans or dramatically reduces test coverage"), but that doesn't feel right, if we truly want to aim for having Basic criteria valid all the time and applying Basic tests during package gating.
In the past, user actions took precedence over e.g. mass deployment features, because we tested manually first among local testers, and only then made public Alpha/Beta/Final releases for the mass audience. But with continuous testing through automation, the picture is reversed, and we need features like kickstarts and kernel cmdline options sooner than we need manual user actions.
So... I don't know, this is tricky :) Putting it all under Basic is of course ideal for us, and since there's still no meaningful difference between Basic and Beta, I guess it's good enough for now. Once there is some difference (like build gating rejection when these criteria are violated), the installer team might push for moving some of those requirements to a later stage.
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:11 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
What about mDNS?
Something to the effect that if it's installed and enabled by a default package set for an edition, it should work (resolve and respond). That means it would apply to Workstation and KDE. It wouldn't apply to Cloud, or Server. I'm not sure if IoT enables it.
-- Chris Murphy
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:08 PM Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com wrote:
What about mDNS?
Something to the effect that if it's installed and enabled by a default package set for an edition, it should work (resolve and respond). That means it would apply to Workstation and KDE. It wouldn't apply to Cloud, or Server. I'm not sure if IoT enables it.
That sounds good to me, but it seems to belong to the Final milestone rather than Basic or Beta. Can be proposed separately.
On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 10:06 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:11 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
What about mDNS?
ehhhhhhh
I am probably a bit biased on this front because I always found mDNS to be a pile of garbage and gave up trying to use it a while back. :P But if a significant amount of people are actually using it and relying on it, adding it might make sense. Anyone else have input on this? Who out there does use mDNS?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 5:56 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 10:06 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:11 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
What about mDNS?
ehhhhhhh
I am probably a bit biased on this front because I always found mDNS to be a pile of garbage and gave up trying to use it a while back. :P But if a significant amount of people are actually using it and relying on it, adding it might make sense. Anyone else have input on this? Who out there does use mDNS?
The IPP Everywhere specification requires clients to support DNS-SD (mDNS is part of that) or WS-Discovery. Printers are required to support both DNS-SD and WS-Discovery. Avahi and systemd-resolved support DNS-SD, functionally equating DNS-SD and mDNS.
Final release criterion says printing via the generic IPP driver must work. This implies discovery or you can't print. Or accept a craptastic user experience by fudging the requirement to say, well as long as an IP address works, the criterion is met.
It's even less of a leap if folks can't discover other services like SMB shares. That's more common than printing.
Between avahi and systemd-resolved, I'm not sure which one is more dependable for blocking on. Or whether their maintainers would be on board with such a criterion. At least for F33, Avahi is what we're using on desktops for this. Both resolve and respond are disabled in systemd-resolved so if it's better to do this with systemd-resolved, then it probably needs a Fedora 34 feature proposal.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:57 AM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, 2020-08-27 at 10:06 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 6:11 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
What about mDNS?
ehhhhhhh
I am probably a bit biased on this front because I always found mDNS to be a pile of garbage and gave up trying to use it a while back. :P But if a significant amount of people are actually using it and relying on it, adding it might make sense. Anyone else have input on this? Who out there does use mDNS?
I contact my machines (even VMs) through <hostname>.local every day, I'd be very angry if it didn't work, and I consider myself a significant amount of people ;o)
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi folks!
So at this week's blocker review meeting, the fact that we don't have explicit networking requirements in the release criteria really started to bite us. In the past we have squeezed networking-related issues in under other criteria, but for some issues that's really difficult, notably VPN issues. So, we agreed we should draft some explicit networking criteria.
Update: here's a second draft with feedback so far incorporated, thanks to everyone. Still mulling over whether/how to split it more across milestones.
=== Network requirements ===
Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included).
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using both typical router-provided addressing systems (e.g. DHCP on IPv4 or SLAAC or IPv6) and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console, for release-blocking desktops and for installer environments must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
Footnote titled "Supported hardware": Supported network hardware is hardware for which the Fedora kernel includes drivers and, where necessary, for which a firmware package is available. If support for a commonly-used piece or type of network hardware that would usually be present is omitted, that may constitute a violation of this criterion, after consideration of the [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ|hardware-dependent- issues|normal factors for hardware-dependent issues]]. Similarly, violations of this criteria that are hardware or configuration dependent are, as usual, subject to consideration of those factors when determining whether they are release-blocking
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VPN servers with typical configurations.
Footnote titled "Supported servers and configurations": As there are many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more likely it is to be a blocker.
[Sorry for the double post, somewhere along the way desktop@ and kde@ were dropped, so I'm re-adding them and that means double post for test@ and devel@.]
Re: add working mDNS to the criterion
The IPP Everywhere specification requires clients to support DNS-SD (mDNS is part of that) or WS-Discovery. Printers are required to support both DNS-SD and WS-Discovery. Avahi and systemd-resolved support DNS-SD, functionally equating DNS-SD and mDNS.
Final release criterion says printing via the generic IPP driver must work. This implies discovery or you can't print. Or accept a craptastic user experience by fudging the requirement to say, well as long as an IP address works, the criterion is met.
It's even less of a leap if folks can't discover other services like SMB shares. That's more common than printing.
Between avahi and systemd-resolved, I'm not sure which one is more dependable for blocking on. Or whether their maintainers would be on board with such a criterion. At least for F33, Avahi is what we're using on desktops for this. Both resolve and respond are disabled in systemd-resolved so if it's better to do this with systemd-resolved, then it probably needs a Fedora 34 feature proposal.
-- Chris Murphy
On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 7:52 PM Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com wrote:
The IPP Everywhere specification requires clients to support DNS-SD (mDNS is part of that) or WS-Discovery. Printers are required to support both DNS-SD and WS-Discovery. Avahi and systemd-resolved support DNS-SD, functionally equating DNS-SD and mDNS.
From the spec:
"Printers MUST publish a text (TXT) record that provides service information over mDNS. Printers that support dynamic DNS updates MUST publish separate TXT records for each domain that is updated."
I'm not completely certain, but I'm wondering whether it's possible to print IPP Everywhere at all, if DNS-SD or WS-Discovery aren't working on the client. Even having the IP address might not be enough.
I guess one way to test it would be to run the printing test case with an IPP Everywhere printer, and try to print with avahi stopped.
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 1:59 AM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi folks!
So at this week's blocker review meeting, the fact that we don't have explicit networking requirements in the release criteria really started to bite us. In the past we have squeezed networking-related issues in under other criteria, but for some issues that's really difficult, notably VPN issues. So, we agreed we should draft some explicit networking criteria.
Update: here's a second draft with feedback so far incorporated, thanks to everyone. Still mulling over whether/how to split it more across milestones.
=== Network requirements ===
Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included).
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using both typical router-provided addressing systems (e.g. DHCP on IPv4 or SLAAC or IPv6) and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console, for release-blocking desktops and for installer environments must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
Footnote titled "Supported hardware": Supported network hardware is hardware for which the Fedora kernel includes drivers and, where necessary, for which a firmware package is available. If support for a commonly-used piece or type of network hardware that would usually be present is omitted, that may constitute a violation of this criterion, after consideration of the [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ|hardware-dependent- issues|normal factors for hardware-dependent issues]]. Similarly, violations of this criteria that are hardware or configuration dependent are, as usual, subject to consideration of those factors when determining whether they are release-blocking
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VPN servers with typical configurations.
Footnote titled "Supported servers and configurations": As there are many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more likely it is to be a blocker.
Sounds good to me.
On Fri, 2020-08-28 at 16:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2020-08-21 at 17:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi folks!
So at this week's blocker review meeting, the fact that we don't have explicit networking requirements in the release criteria really started to bite us. In the past we have squeezed networking-related issues in under other criteria, but for some issues that's really difficult, notably VPN issues. So, we agreed we should draft some explicit networking criteria.
Update: here's a second draft with feedback so far incorporated, thanks to everyone. Still mulling over whether/how to split it more across milestones.
=== Network requirements ===
Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included).
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using both typical router-provided addressing systems (e.g. DHCP on IPv4 or SLAAC or IPv6) and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console, for release-blocking desktops and for installer environments must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected.
Footnote titled "Supported hardware": Supported network hardware is hardware for which the Fedora kernel includes drivers and, where necessary, for which a firmware package is available. If support for a commonly-used piece or type of network hardware that would usually be present is omitted, that may constitute a violation of this criterion, after consideration of the [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ|hardware-dependent- issues|normal factors for hardware-dependent issues]]. Similarly, violations of this criteria that are hardware or configuration dependent are, as usual, subject to consideration of those factors when determining whether they are release-blocking
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VPN servers with typical configurations.
Footnote titled "Supported servers and configurations": As there are many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more likely it is to be a blocker.
So, uh, we sorta forgot about this. Kamil approved this draft, but nobody else gave any feedback on it. This topic is still relevant and we have a proposed VPN blocker today, so...any more feedback on this draft?
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:37 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
So, uh, we sorta forgot about this. Kamil approved this draft, but nobody else gave any feedback on it. This topic is still relevant and we have a proposed VPN blocker today, so...any more feedback on this draft?
I think it's sound enough to start using. I'm sure we'll find all sorts of edge cases to argue over and eventually fix. That's the Fedora Way™.
-
Adam Williamson -
Ben Cotton -
Chris Murphy -
Kamil Paral -
Michel Alexandre Salim -
s40w5s＠gmail.com