Comment 57 for bug 1621507

11:11 <rbasak> cyphermox, lamont: in bug 1621507's test cases, we had previous reported regressions with ip="" and ip=:::::eth0:dhcp. Those should be in the test plan, IMHO.

11:13 <rbasak> cyphermox: lamont: what are "jderose's use cases"?

11:15 <rbasak> cyphermox: lamont: also, under "Non-MAAS test cases", will it matter what the network responds with? In the IPv4 cases, we need to make sure that behaviour doesn't change whether or not IPv6 DHCP and/or radvd are present, so the status of the network should be part of the test case.

11:16 <rbasak> For ip6= I'm not so bothered, since existing users won't be using that.

11:22 <rbasak> cyphermox, lamont: final two points. 1) are the review fixes we landed in proposed in Xenial in Zesty yet? If not, they should be, and I expect to block release of the SRUs on this. I gave a pass at accepting into proposed only because we were so delayed already; we have time now.

11:23 <rbasak> cyphermox, lamont: 2) who's actually going to do all the verifications here? It seems to be that nobody is nominated right now, so I'm expecting it to run past the seven days right now, and I know lamont is in a hurry, so you should probably resolve that now.