|
Hello Alexandru, All, Firstly, I would like to thank you for your prompt answer!
Regarding your questions below: - We consider STD 26.2 as fulfilled by a Kernel/Package combination, as Linux Kernel has support for L2TPv3, including IPv6 endpoints
starting Linux 3.5. - Regarding SMM7.1-3: P2041rdb board does not have IPMI support indeed, therefore openipmi package should be seen more like software
support when it comes to these requirements. For SMM7.1-3 we’ve used lm_sensors package for monitoring, therefore I will amend the registration form accordingly (please find attached).
Please let me know if the provided information is considered to be sufficient at this point – in that case, we will also provide the
company logo and the public disclosure link for Enea Carrier Grade Linux 5.0. Regards, Cosmin From: Alexandru Vaduva [mailto:vaduvajanalexandru@xxxxxxxxx]
Hello Cosmin,, It seems that your submission was quite straightforward, but there are a couple of questions that came during the review: STD.26.2 - mentions that support for L2TPv3 is necessary and it seems that the package openl2tp has only L2TPv2 version support.
SMM.7.1, SMM.7.2, SMM.7.3 - you indicate openipmi as the package that solves these requirements but unfortunately I was not able to identify
IPMI hardware support for the processor architecture that you indicate, am I missing information on this one? Your help with this question is really appreciated. In case the answers will require updating the registration template, a new amended
submission will be necessary. Otherwise the next step would require from your side to provide with the company logo and also a corresponding public disclosures link for the Enea Carrier Grade Linux distribution. You can use as inspiration the already registered
distributions link:
Registered Distributions
Alexandru Vaduva (on behalf of the CGL workgroup). On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 11:05 AM, Cosmin Moldoveanu <Cosmin.Moldoveanu@xxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Alexandru, Thank you for your reply! I will gladly answer to your questions. Regarding GAPs, we did not claim support for any of them indeed - we are aware of them still, at this stage, validation of those features
was not part of our main focus. Regards, Cosmin From: Alexandru
Vaduva [mailto:vaduvajanalexandru@xxxxxxxxx]
Hello Cosmin, Thanks for your interest in the CGL specification and the workgroup.
Since this is the first time Enea is registering for the CGL certification the process might be a bit more tedious. There might be a couple
of questions that could come up during the review, hoping that you can help me. Also, you have not claimed support for any GAPs. You do not need to for the registration, but I wanted to make sure that you were aware
of them in case you did want to disclose support for some of those features. Alexandru Vaduva (on behalf of the CGL workgroup). On Monday, December 7, 2015 1:53 PM, Cosmin Moldoveanu <Cosmin.Moldoveanu@xxxxxxxx>
wrote: /C | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachment:
ECGL 5.0 for PPC Registration - P204x.xls
Description: ECGL 5.0 for PPC Registration - P204x.xls
_______________________________________________ Lf_carrier mailing list Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier
