| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:06 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 00:15 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:16 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 00:16 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:17 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 00:18 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:40 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:42 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 00:48 | |
| *** Adri2000 has quit IRC | 00:53 | |
| *** Adri2000 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:55 | |
| *** TravT has quit IRC | 00:57 | |
| *** eguz has quit IRC | 01:22 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:32 | |
| *** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:33 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 01:35 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:41 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:42 | |
| *** shivharis has quit IRC | 01:45 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 01:54 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 01:57 | |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 01:59 | |
| *** beyounn has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:12 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:18 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 02:19 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:21 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 02:25 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 02:30 | |
| *** devlaps has quit IRC | 02:35 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:35 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 02:39 | |
| *** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away | 02:45 | |
| *** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:59 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 03:01 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:03 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 03:04 | |
| *** dtroyer has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:38 | |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 03:42 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:49 | |
| *** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:51 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 03:54 | |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 03:56 | |
| *** shakamunyi has quit IRC | 04:05 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 04:32 | |
| *** Tufin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:42 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 04:48 | |
| *** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan | 04:50 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:51 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:55 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 04:56 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:18 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 05:26 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:27 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:37 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 05:42 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:24 | |
| *** beyounn has quit IRC | 06:26 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:36 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 06:37 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:37 | |
| *** Tufin has quit IRC | 06:37 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:38 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:39 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 06:40 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:40 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 06:45 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 06:48 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 06:56 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 07:03 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:07 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 07:18 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 07:30 | |
| *** Tufin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:35 | |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:37 | |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 07:44 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 07:51 | |
| *** safchain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:54 | |
| *** zigo_ is now known as zigo | 07:55 | |
| *** Tufin has quit IRC | 08:12 | |
| *** Tufin_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:14 | |
| *** Tufin_ is now known as Tufin | 08:17 | |
| *** jamie_h has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:23 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:23 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 08:27 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 08:30 | |
| *** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away | 08:30 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:34 | |
| *** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan | 08:42 | |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 08:54 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:40 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 09:55 | |
| *** Tufin has quit IRC | 09:55 | |
| *** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away | 10:04 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:11 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:11 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 10:15 | |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 10:33 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 10:37 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 10:56 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:04 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:06 | |
| *** jamie_h has quit IRC | 11:07 | |
| *** jamie_h has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:08 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 11:10 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 11:39 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 12:20 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:21 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:27 | |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 12:34 | |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:49 | |
| *** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:51 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 13:00 | |
| *** peristeri has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:11 | |
| *** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan | 13:14 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:15 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 13:20 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 13:29 | |
| *** safchain has quit IRC | 13:35 | |
| *** enykeev has quit IRC | 13:36 | |
| *** safchain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:36 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:05 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:06 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:20 | |
| *** wchrisj has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:21 | |
| *** wchrisj has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:21 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:29 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:36 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 14:36 | |
| *** otherwis_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:38 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:40 | |
| *** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:41 | |
| *** cjellick_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:41 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 14:41 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 14:45 | |
| *** cjellick_ has quit IRC | 14:45 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:46 | |
| *** otherwis_ is now known as otherwiseguy | 14:50 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:59 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:05 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 15:06 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:08 | |
| *** rudrarugge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:12 | |
| *** samchoi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:18 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 15:21 | |
| *** rudrarugge has quit IRC | 15:30 | |
| mfer | #startmeeting openstack-sdk-php | 15:31 |
|---|---|---|
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Apr 30 15:31:04 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mfer. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:31 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 15:31 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_sdk_php' | 15:31 |
| mfer | Can everyone please state your name and any applicable association. | 15:31 |
| mfer | Matt Farina, HP | 15:31 |
| samchoi | Sam Choi, HP | 15:31 |
| jamie_h | Jamie Hannaford, Rackspace | 15:31 |
| jamie_h | Shaunak and Glen are at a meeting, so won't be attending today | 15:31 |
| mfer | #topic Agenda | 15:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Agenda (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 15:32 | |
| mfer | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/OpenStack-SDK-PHP | 15:32 |
| mfer | 1. Intro to the PHP SDK if there is anyone new? (mfer) | 15:32 |
| mfer | 2. Near term roadmap (mfer) | 15:32 |
| mfer | 3. Service definitions (jamie_h) | 15:32 |
| mfer | 4. Blueprints / Bugs / Reviews (mfer) | 15:32 |
| mfer | 5. Copyrights? (jamie_h) | 15:32 |
| mfer | 6. Open Discussion (mfer) | 15:32 |
| mfer | Since there is no one new here we can jump to #2 | 15:33 |
| mfer | #topic Near term roadmap | 15:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Near term roadmap (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 15:33 | |
| mfer | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack-SDK-PHP#Short_Term_Roadmap | 15:33 |
| mfer | I left this on here because we've had a bit of discussion on it. is there anything else we should talk about? | 15:33 |
| jamie_h | Today I've been working on 2 (Guzzle transport layer) | 15:34 |
| jamie_h | Shaunak will be commencing progress on Friday with his doc stuff | 15:34 |
| jamie_h | He put together this spec: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack-SDK-PHP/UserFacingDocumentation | 15:34 |
| jamie_h | Other than that, I have nothing else | 15:35 |
| mfer | jamie_h #2 was marked as complete so that's something we might want to talk about. | 15:35 |
| mfer | I'm glad to see Shaunak working on that stuff. I'll poke around at what he put together | 15:35 |
| jamie_h | It's adding no new functionality - just refactoring existing stuff and adding missing tests | 15:35 |
| jamie_h | adding FIG messages etc. | 15:36 |
| samchoi | jamie_h: is there a bug/blueprint with additional details? | 15:36 |
| mfer | jamie_h FIG message for a response was already included. | 15:37 |
| mfer | jamie_h i think the question is why and how does it fit in the scope of what | 15:37 |
| jamie_h | only a ResponseInterface was there - there was no MessageInterface or RequestInterface | 15:37 |
| mfer | only the featuers that need to be present are the ones that will be used. the use case and how it fits into scope is the larger question | 15:38 |
| jamie_h | it's work on the transport layer that enables us to move on with the more complex service stuff | 15:38 |
| jamie_h | right now there are inefficiencies which need to be cleaned up | 15:38 |
| jamie_h | When we agreed to take on the codebase, we agreed to the idea of refactoring | 15:38 |
| jamie_h | I'm not going to steam on with adding stuff to a wobbly foundation | 15:39 |
| mfer | this isn't about refactoring. anything that goes in should have a purpose in the broader scope. can you please add a blueprint describing what, why, and how it fits in. | 15:39 |
| jamie_h | Of course - I'll sketch one today | 15:40 |
| mfer | we're building a binding in an SDK and not an application. This is meant for end users to have a simple and useful way to map to services. i just want to make sure we don't go down a road of feature creep or into something larger and more unwieldy than needed. | 15:40 |
| jamie_h | I agree. But we also have an obligation to provide users with code that is well-written and not riddled with technical debt | 15:41 |
| mfer | jamie_h i'd prefer if you didn't call this a wobbly foundation or otherwise poke it with a negative tone. there are some things you have looked down upon which were intentional decsions based on good engineering principles with end users in mind. I do agree that debt should be removed. | 15:43 |
| mfer | if you have a question about why something is please ask and try to understand why something is a certain way | 15:44 |
| mfer | i look forward to the blueprint | 15:44 |
| mfer | is there anything else on the roadmap? | 15:44 |
| jamie_h | just to clarify: | 15:44 |
| samchoi | For work done on the transport layer/Guzzle, I think we should also keep in mind that how we make use of Guzzle can make it more difficult for contributors to understand the codebas since Guzzle itself takes some time to get used to. | 15:44 |
| jamie_h | does every patch in OpenStack require a blueprint first? | 15:44 |
| mfer | jamie_h no | 15:45 |
| mfer | jamie_h not every patch requires a blueprint or bug. but, any new featuers or bugs should have something associated | 15:45 |
| mfer | so, something like removing the credits file is just fine | 15:45 |
| jamie_h | how about refactoring which doesn't introduce new features? | 15:46 |
| *** rand738 has quit IRC | 15:46 | |
| samchoi | mfer: so there aren't many cases where a patch wouldn't have an associated bp/bug then? | 15:46 |
| jamie_h | does that require an official blueprint? | 15:46 |
| *** rand738 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:46 | |
| jamie_h | samchoi: I agree - we need to minimize the complexity underneath, and separate it out so it's not intimidating or cryptic for new users - that was what I was working on today | 15:47 |
| jamie_h | things like renaming "GuzzleClient" class to "GuzzleAdapter" | 15:47 |
| mfer | jamie_h possibly not. but, the refactor should be discussed and intents be clear. many of the decisions were made for good technical reasons. to switch to a different architecture the technical changes and reasoning needs to be clear and understood | 15:48 |
| jamie_h | I completely agree - I'm not trying to move to a different architecture, just strengthen and simplify the one we have :) | 15:48 |
| mfer | jamie_h those are fine. strengthen just needs to be clearly communicated | 15:49 |
| jamie_h | Okay. I just think we need to be open to the idea of changing parts of the codebase. Asking for formal blueprints and debating every minutiae of detail raises barriers IMHO | 15:49 |
| mfer | and not on a personal pref merit. i've seen some of that on some projects recently and i'd like to avoid those things. | 15:50 |
| mfer | doing things in openstack has extra barriers. that's part of the system of folks from very different walks of life working together and the large companies being incolved. | 15:50 |
| mfer | lets try to minimize those and work efficiently in them | 15:51 |
| jamie_h | I agree - what's the best way to communicate prospective refactorings? | 15:51 |
| jamie_h | surely that's what Gerrit is for? | 15:51 |
| mfer | commit messages. when questions come up clearly articulate reasoning. things like that | 15:52 |
| mfer | provide logic and reasoned cases | 15:52 |
| jamie_h | Okay - what's the best way to do that? Gerrit doesn't have a great commenting system - shall we use the Wiki? | 15:52 |
| jamie_h | I'm wary about having to write a wiki article for every patch I write. It'll take days to merge simple refactorings then | 15:53 |
| mfer | The latest release of Gerrit has the ability to just do comments in addition to reviews. comments inline are a great way. someone can ask a question about a section of code in context and a discussion can happen there | 15:53 |
| mfer | is there a reason this won't work? | 15:54 |
| jamie_h | Let's go with that for now | 15:54 |
| jamie_h | I'm happy to move on | 15:54 |
| mfer | anything else with the roadmap or shall we talk service definitions? | 15:54 |
| jamie_h | I have nothing to add for roadmap | 15:55 |
| samchoi | I'm good | 15:55 |
| mfer | #topic Service definitions | 15:55 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Service definitions (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 15:55 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:55 | |
| mfer | jamie_h since this is your item can you kick us off | 15:55 |
| jamie_h | I sent out several e-mails and wrote up some Wiki articles detailing my idea | 15:55 |
| jamie_h | did everyone get a chance to read it? | 15:55 |
| mfer | jamie_h i did | 15:56 |
| jamie_h | it was fairly long, so no worries if not :) | 15:56 |
| jamie_h | so it's just an idea - I'm not firmly advocating it. I think it could offer us and our users a lot of advantages | 15:56 |
| samchoi | I was out earlier this week, I haven't gotten through all emails unfortunately | 15:57 |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 15:57 | |
| *** overlayer_kiwi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:57 | |
| jamie_h | mfer do you have any questions? If not, shall we postpone this topic until next week so Sam has a chance to read everything? | 15:57 |
| mfer | jamie_h I understand the case you're making. I took this a few steps further. I looked at other places that are using this. did you know Google is taking json schema and generating Go code from it? i also dug into the debugging experience even if something like Guzzle isn't used. | 15:58 |
| mfer | so, i'm up to speed | 15:58 |
| jamie_h | really? I didn't know they were generating go code - that's awesome | 15:58 |
| jamie_h | I love their Discovery API | 15:59 |
| jamie_h | mfer do you have any concerns about using a definitions DSL like the one I described? Or any reason why userland code would be better? | 15:59 |
| mfer | i can come up with other ways to do the same thing w/o json schemas. | 16:00 |
| mfer | better here is going to be a little subjectice on the developer experience side | 16:00 |
| jamie_h | by "other ways" do you mean userland code? Or a DSL? | 16:02 |
| mfer | my largest curiosity is that I discussed this with some folks in and out of HP who work on SDKs. the majority reaction I got was to use userland code. i was a little surprised | 16:02 |
| mfer | i'd like to explore their thinking more. | 16:02 |
| jamie_h | okay, sure. Let's try and compile a list of strong reasons for/against so we can evaluate further | 16:02 |
| mfer | personally, i don't have a preference one way or another. i'm fine either way. i'd like like to understand this first and why some folks had push back the way they did | 16:02 |
| jamie_h | I agree. The openstack-dev mailing list is a great way to find this out too | 16:03 |
| mfer | some of these folks will be at the summit. i'd like to spend some time face to face with them and talk it through. | 16:03 |
| jamie_h | I did a search for json-schema and the reaction was nearly always positive | 16:03 |
| jamie_h | okay - sounds like a plan | 16:03 |
| mfer | i'm saving the emails and wiki pages you had to use in the conversations. to share examples and talk it through | 16:03 |
| mfer | i have a feeling that those who didn't take on json schema didn't say anything at all | 16:04 |
| mfer | and, i wonder if there is some stuff that's misunderstood | 16:04 |
| jamie_h | do you want to postpone this schema stuff until after the summit? | 16:05 |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 16:05 | |
| mfer | jamie_h i think you did a good job of articulating your point. i was also able to easily find any missing information i wanted when i researched | 16:05 |
| mfer | yeah, i was thinking we postpone that until after the summit. i'll collect a bunch of feedback and share | 16:05 |
| samchoi | btw, OS summit is next week and mfer is out all week right? | 16:06 |
| mfer | the OS summit is the week after next | 16:06 |
| jamie_h | so, can we halt work on all service stuff until after the summit - since schemas are linked to that | 16:06 |
| jamie_h | I don't want to get started on something, realize we've committed to a solution, and that forms the basis for not including schemas | 16:07 |
| mfer | if something becomes clear during the summit i'll be sure to start emails then | 16:07 |
| mfer | thanks. | 16:07 |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| jamie_h | so until the summit finished, how will this affect the roadmap? | 16:07 |
| mfer | i was really interested in the schema work. then i spoke with some others and they had reservations. i'd like to just make sure everything is vetted | 16:07 |
| jamie_h | okay that's fair | 16:07 |
| mfer | i'm not sure how it affects the roadmap | 16:08 |
| mfer | there are some other things we can work on in the meantime | 16:09 |
| jamie_h | sure okay | 16:09 |
| jamie_h | I'm happy to move on to next topic | 16:09 |
| mfer | samchoi are you ready to move on? | 16:09 |
| samchoi | sure, I'll gather more information on my own and from emails | 16:10 |
| samchoi | no further comments at this time | 16:10 |
| mfer | #topic Blueprints / Bugs / Reviews | 16:10 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Blueprints / Bugs / Reviews (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 16:10 | |
| mfer | Lets start with the credits file one | 16:10 |
| mfer | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/91305/ | 16:10 |
| mfer | I don't see an issue with this one. It seems fairly straight forward. | 16:11 |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:11 | |
| jamie_h | samchoi did you have reservations for this one? | 16:12 |
| samchoi | no, looks fine | 16:12 |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 16:12 | |
| mfer | then i just merged it now :) | 16:13 |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:13 | |
| mfer | err, reviewed it for Jenkins to do it's thing | 16:13 |
| jamie_h | cool! | 16:13 |
| mfer | then there is the test separation one | 16:13 |
| mfer | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90407/ | 16:13 |
| jamie_h | can we talk about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90378/7 first? | 16:14 |
| jamie_h | since it's a dependency | 16:14 |
| mfer | ok | 16:14 |
| jamie_h | thanks mfer for your feedback on this one. I ended up adding back in a lot of the original tests | 16:14 |
| jamie_h | there's only minor refactoring, removing duplication etc. | 16:14 |
| mfer | i've not had a chance to look through the latest patch set | 16:14 |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:15 | |
| mfer | i'd like to get to that later today | 16:15 |
| jamie_h | okay | 16:15 |
| mfer | each day i'm carving out some time to do some reviews and that time hasn't come up since the last time you pushed a change | 16:16 |
| mfer | i'll review this one before i get to the test structure changes one | 16:16 |
| jamie_h | thanks | 16:16 |
| mfer | jamie_h with this change would it be safe to run against devstack too? | 16:18 |
| *** TravT has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:18 | |
| jamie_h | mfer yep, that's what I was running against | 16:18 |
| mfer | great. i'll do that. thanks | 16:18 |
| mfer | I was going to start the process to convert bootstrap away from a singleton (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/openstack-sdk-php/+spec/remove-openstack-singleton) | 16:19 |
| jamie_h | samchoi do you need today to review this one too? I know you approved of the other one (separating out tests) | 16:19 |
| jamie_h | mfer okay, sounds good | 16:20 |
| samchoi | to review 90378? I'll look through the latest patch today. I haven't looked at others' comments, but I didn't see any blockers or serious issues. | 16:21 |
| jamie_h | mfer can we talk about whether to have a global context (like Bootstrap) or individual service builders - perhaps in IRC later? | 16:21 |
| jamie_h | I haven't had much time to get to grips with bootstrap yet | 16:21 |
| mfer | jamie_h sure. | 16:21 |
| mfer | the idea is the developer experience of developers integrating this into their setup. to make it easy for the long tail of developers | 16:22 |
| jamie_h | yeah, like a single access point | 16:22 |
| mfer | we're not targeting the top 10% of devs. they likely wouldn't need an SDK. i want to make sure we help the long tail be successful | 16:22 |
| mfer | i'll start with a spec | 16:22 |
| jamie_h | I like the idea of making it as easy as possible to create a service | 16:23 |
| jamie_h | are there any other patches that need discussion? | 16:24 |
| mfer | yeah, i do too. it's two slightly different audiences. someone who is going to add to/extend the binding and someone who is going to use it. | 16:24 |
| mfer | those are the only 3 open reviews right now | 16:24 |
| mfer | samchoi did you have anything that needed discussing? | 16:24 |
| samchoi | nope | 16:24 |
| mfer | shall we move on to copyrights? | 16:25 |
| jamie_h | sure | 16:25 |
| mfer | #topic Copyrights? | 16:25 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Copyrights? (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 16:25 | |
| mfer | jamie_h this is another one you added. can you fill in the context | 16:26 |
| mfer | i think i know what you mean but i don't want to assume | 16:26 |
| jamie_h | So I submitted a patch a week or so ago that rewrote all the copyright headers to use OpenStack Foundation as the copyright holder. Currently the files reference HP | 16:26 |
| jamie_h | more time was required for investigation to see the legal ramifications of changing to OpenStack Foundation | 16:27 |
| mfer | Unfortunately, I've not had the time for that yet. | 16:27 |
| mfer | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/LegalIssuesFAQ#Copyright_Headers | 16:27 |
| jamie_h | that's fine - shall we add this to next week's agenda? | 16:28 |
| jamie_h | basically, an overwhelming reason to keep HP as the copyright holder on this project | 16:28 |
| jamie_h | instead of switching everything to OpenStack Foundation | 16:28 |
| mfer | I was going to save this for the open discussions but i will likely not be here next week. i'm on vacation. | 16:28 |
| mfer | can we punt it to the week after the summit? | 16:28 |
| mfer | there's actually a "duplicative licensing situation" going on here | 16:29 |
| *** tjones has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:29 | |
| samchoi | mfer: Is this something we can send off to HP legal to research for us? | 16:29 |
| mfer | and I'm not sure of the legal stance within HP and within the community. i need to make checks on both sides | 16:29 |
| jamie_h | sure, let's talk about it after the simmit | 16:29 |
| mfer | samchoi I need to check with HPs lawyers | 16:29 |
| mfer | note, it's not uncommon for companies to be in the headers like this. | 16:30 |
| mfer | you'll see it in lots of projects | 16:30 |
| mfer | i'm just always very caucious around these legalities | 16:30 |
| samchoi | we should wrap up... I think we'll be kicked out shortly | 16:31 |
| mfer | ok, there is another meeting starting. see y'all in #openstack-sdks | 16:31 |
| mfer | #endmeeting | 16:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 16:31 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Apr 30 16:31:56 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:31 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-04-30-15.31.html | 16:31 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-04-30-15.31.txt | 16:32 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-04-30-15.31.log.html | 16:32 |
| mfer | sorry for going over a minute | 16:32 |
| tjones | #startmeeting NovaBugScrub | 16:32 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Apr 30 16:32:07 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is tjones. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 16:32 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 16:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: NovaBugScrub)" | 16:32 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'novabugscrub' | 16:32 |
| jaypipes | o/ how can I help | 16:32 |
| tjones | no prom mfer | 16:32 |
| tjones | hi jaypipes. we r just going to tag untagged today. got a bunch of them | 16:32 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=-*&field.status%3Alist=NEW | 16:32 |
| *** beagles has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:33 | |
| tjones | i usually try to get to it before this meeting and only have the ones i don't know to review but i have not had time | 16:33 |
| jaypipes | tjones: ok, sounds good. are there specific tags I should be using? | 16:33 |
| tjones | yes - they are on …. *finding it* | 16:33 |
| jaypipes | tjones: just the ones on the right there? | 16:33 |
| tjones | the official tags are on #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Nova/BugTriage | 16:34 |
| jaypipes | thx! | 16:34 |
| tjones | we go through the list of untagged and tag them so the owners can further triage | 16:34 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1313661 | 16:35 |
| jaypipes | cool. well, I will try and help as much as I can. thx for that link :) | 16:35 |
| tjones | this looks like networking | 16:35 |
| tjones | chime in if you disagree otherwise i will just keep going | 16:35 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1314217 | 16:36 |
| tjones | that is api | 16:36 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1314217 | 16:36 |
| tjones | networking | 16:36 |
| jaypipes | tjones: do you mind if I tag a couple of these with "low-hanging-fruit"? | 16:36 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1301532 | 16:37 |
| jaypipes | in particular, I think 1314217 is a low-hanging fruit | 16:37 |
| tjones | hmmm….. compute or api? | 16:37 |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 16:37 | |
| tjones | aded low-hanging-fruit to that | 16:37 |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:38 | |
| tjones | im going to start with api on https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1301532 unless someone disagrees | 16:38 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1301532 | 16:39 |
| jaypipes | tjones: no, it's not really api. I would go with compute. | 16:39 |
| jaypipes | tjones: the quota one... | 16:39 |
| tjones | ok done | 16:39 |
| tjones | compute it is | 16:39 |
| jaypipes | tjones: just cuz it's not solvable via an api change... | 16:39 |
| tjones | makes sense | 16:39 |
| jaypipes | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1312002 | 16:40 |
| jaypipes | cells | 16:40 |
| tjones | forgot that was a valid tag | 16:40 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1312874 | 16:40 |
| tjones | volume | 16:41 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1313707 | 16:41 |
| tjones | libvirt | 16:41 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1314129 | 16:42 |
| tjones | no idea | 16:42 |
| tjones | its a build thing | 16:43 |
| tjones | im just going to leave it - looks like ihar is taking care of all of them | 16:44 |
| jaypipes | tjones: a build thing? | 16:44 |
| tjones | this one https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1314129 | 16:44 |
| tjones | 9:42 | 16:44 |
| jaypipes | tjones: not sure it's a build thing, but it certasinly doesn't fit with any existing tags :) | 16:44 |
| tjones | yeah lets leave it. | 16:44 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1314490 | 16:44 |
| jaypipes | tjones: well, hold up... maybe "oslo" tag it, since it's jsonutils in oslo. | 16:45 |
| tjones | oh ok | 16:45 |
| tjones | there you go | 16:45 |
| tjones | now the nxt one - this one i think we just push back. there is not enough info here | 16:45 |
| tjones | unless it is ec2 and they know what this means | 16:46 |
| jaypipes | tjones: it's a simple refactoring... I marked it low-hnangin-frut | 16:46 |
| tjones | ok | 16:46 |
| jaypipes | or low-hanging-fruit, as it were.. | 16:46 |
| jaypipes | typing sucks today... | 16:46 |
| tjones | lol | 16:46 |
| tjones | #link this one i think we just push back. there is not enough info here | 16:46 |
| tjones | oops | 16:46 |
| tjones | #undo | 16:46 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Link object at 0x390e290> | 16:46 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1314526 | 16:46 |
| jaypipes | tjones: I can't set bug priorities. you might want to set the above bug priority to low. | 16:47 |
| tjones | libvirt | 16:47 |
| jaypipes | 1314490 | 16:47 |
| tjones | yes | 16:47 |
| *** overlayer_kiwi has quit IRC | 16:47 | |
| jaypipes | yup, libvirt. | 16:47 |
| tjones | next one vmware | 16:47 |
| jaypipes | and final one is cells. | 16:48 |
| tjones | last one #Link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1314677 | 16:48 |
| jaypipes | cells | 16:48 |
| tjones | cells | 16:48 |
| jaypipes | :) yup. | 16:48 |
| tjones | and DONE | 16:48 |
| jaypipes | tjones: anything else I can help with? | 16:48 |
| tjones | now i take a peek and see if there are critical bugs not moving and there are not | 16:48 |
| tjones | so we are done | 16:48 |
| tjones | thanks jaypipes! | 16:48 |
| jaypipes | tjones: any time, happy to help. pls do let me know if I can assist you with bug triaging or verification stuffs. | 16:49 |
| tjones | thanks! | 16:49 |
| tjones | #endmeeting | 16:49 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 16:49 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Apr 30 16:49:23 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:49 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-04-30-16.32.html | 16:49 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-04-30-16.32.txt | 16:49 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-04-30-16.32.log.html | 16:49 |
| *** jamielennox is now known as jamielennox|away | 17:00 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 17:06 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 17:06 | |
| *** garyduan has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:12 | |
| *** safchain has quit IRC | 17:14 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:19 | |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:20 | |
| *** german_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:22 | |
| *** mandeep has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:23 | |
| *** reaperhulk has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:26 | |
| *** wchrisj__ has quit IRC | 17:29 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | hello Neutrons! | 17:30 |
| *** SridarK has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:30 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: hi | 17:30 |
| mestery | o/ | 17:30 |
| cgoncalves | hi all | 17:30 |
| banix | Haloooo SumitServices | 17:30 |
| SridarK | Hi SumitNaiksatam and all | 17:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery cgoncalves banix: Hi! | 17:30 |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:31 | |
| rkukura | hi | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i will create a bp with that name :-) | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | rkukura: hi! | 17:31 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: :) | 17:31 |
| s3wong | hello | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: or rather IRC alias | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: hi | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_ nachi: there? | 17:31 |
| enikanorov_ | hi | 17:31 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: yeah that would be great or Twitter handle! | 17:31 |
| enikanorov_ | yep, i'm here | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok great, lets get started | 17:31 |
| *** pcm_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:32 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | pcm_: hi | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #startmeeting Networking Advanced Services | 17:32 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Apr 30 17:32:10 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:32 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:32 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'networking_advanced_services' | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Meeting agenda: #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info Wiki page | 17:32 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| *** Kanzhe has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:32 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices | 17:32 |
| pcm_ | SumitNaiksatam: hi | 17:32 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:32 | |
| nati_ueno | Hi! | 17:32 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: hi | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno Kanzhe: hi | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | going forward we will gradually start tracking our Juno progress on the wiki | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | meeting wiki page only for meeting agenda and suggesting topics of discussion | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Neutron Advanced Services' Framework | 17:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Neutron Advanced Services' Framework (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:33 | |
| mestery | +1 to that SumitNaiksatam | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: sure | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hshzNDfBrMj7C_3HnVaUlMSuAzea9MI7S3wLKH5eJmc/edit# | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bassed on the discussions so far, we captured a design plan in the above document | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i also share it with the PTL (mestery) | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *shared | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | it should not be new to whoever has been participating in the IRC and discussions here | 17:34 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: was [2] updated accordingly? | 17:35 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: I liked how the plan was broken up into digestible pieces. :) | 17:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | wanted to bounce it off everyone before we sent to the mailer and socialized more | 17:35 |
| *** Swami has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:35 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: thanks | 17:35 |
| Swami | hi | 17:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: no, 2 has not been updated | 17:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: hi | 17:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i was hoping to replace the references with actual gerrit bp links as they are posted | 17:35 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: +1 to mestery: on that the doc has a nice overview leading off to the pieces parts | 17:36 |
| *** jsoares has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:36 | |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: makes sense | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: for now they are high level place holders | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ok | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | any more thoughts comments on this? | 17:36 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: do you want the proposal of ServiceBase definition to go on [2]? If so, you may want to grant me edit right on that document | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: sure, we can discuss offline | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: i thought it was open, but perhaps not | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | its been a while :-) | 17:37 |
| banix | not open | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | the detail is obviously in the details as far as that document is concerned | 17:37 |
| banix | which is fine | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | which should come through each individual blueprint | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and we will discuss here as well | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: okay, will fix | 17:38 |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 17:38 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_ nati_ueno: any thoughts on the high level plan? | 17:38 |
| nati_ueno | +1 | 17:38 |
| nati_ueno | :) | 17:38 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: high level plan looks good. btw, is there a bp on review regarding service base definition? | 17:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: not yet, since its evolving, s3wong will put one | 17:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: or we might combine it with the service insertion bp that Kanzhe will add | 17:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: but one of those | 17:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: thanks :-) | 17:39 |
| emagana | hi folks! joinig late | 17:39 |
| enikanorov_ | ok. i'd like to focus on neutron-specs since i have to track too much in mailing list and in separate docs | 17:39 |
| nati_ueno | so we will use google doc as draft? | 17:39 |
| emagana | joining* | 17:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: agreed | 17:40 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: s3wong and I will sync up after the meeting. | 17:40 |
| nati_ueno | +1 for discussing in gerrit | 17:40 |
| mestery | +! for neutron-specs | 17:40 |
| mestery | +1 even | 17:40 |
| nati_ueno | mestery: process id? :) | 17:40 |
| enikanorov_ | ^) | 17:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | yes we will try to put this into gerrit at the earliest | 17:40 |
| garyduan | Hi, I am late | 17:40 |
| s3wong | Kanzhe: definitely | 17:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: do you propose that the high level plan be put in gerrit as well? or should we just keep it in the google docs and socialize over emails? | 17:41 |
| nati_ueno | let's have them in the gerrit too | 17:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: with the gerrit specs to follow with individual details | 17:41 |
| nati_ueno | neutron-spec html looks really nice spec doc | 17:41 |
| mestery | I think checking in the high-level plan into gerrit, referencing the other BPs, may not be a bad idea | 17:41 |
| mestery | As long as we make it clear it's a high level plan. | 17:41 |
| mestery | Thoughts? | 17:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno mestery: okay got it | 17:41 |
| banix | well, the high level plan cannot be really reviewed on its own | 17:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | will do that, i think it will help to have the other bps in teh queue too so that those can be referenced | 17:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: yes i agree | 17:42 |
| nati_ueno | banix: if we make sure we agreed on high level in gerrit, we can just refer it, and We can prevent looping discussion | 17:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: ok sure | 17:43 |
| banix | qish we could somehow have he high level plan on evey individual spec to give the reader the context | 17:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we will do it then | 17:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action SumitNaiksatam to add high level advanced services framework bp to gerrit, will not contain details but reference other detailed bps | 17:43 |
| cgoncalves | banix: nice sugestion. will add to port-chain as soon as I submit it to neutron-specs | 17:44 |
| banix | c/quish/wish | 17:44 |
| s3wong | banix: yes, I agree with nati_ueno here. The advanced service high-level idea itself has been circulating for a while, it is great to use gerrit as a channel to gather community feedback | 17:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: hopefully this will be reviewed in that spirit, and we wont get stuck at the lack of details in the high level bp | 17:44 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 17:45 | |
| banix | nati_ueno: s3wong ok; people may not review it on its own but for referencing sounds good | 17:45 |
| nati_ueno | banix: ya, let's link it | 17:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: ^^^ ? | 17:45 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: I will police the BP submission. :) | 17:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: ah good! :-) | 17:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok moving on (unless there is something else on this) | 17:46 |
| banix | so every related spec can start with referncing the high level design | 17:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: ok | 17:46 |
| s3wong | banix: sure | 17:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Key/certificate management using Barbican for VPN and LBaaS | 17:46 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Key/certificate management using Barbican for VPN and LBaaS (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:46 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | this was raised by Swami earlier | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and we brought this up with mestery as well | 17:47 |
| nati_ueno | yes, and we have a thread on this | 17:47 |
| mestery | Yes, thread on the ML. | 17:47 |
| mestery | Seems as if using Barbican here could benefit both VPNaaS and LBaaS. | 17:47 |
| enikanorov_ | right | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno mestery: so at this point this is resolved? | 17:47 |
| nati_ueno | enikanorov_: are you agree with this plan? | 17:48 |
| enikanorov_ | but how neutron can rely on barbican? | 17:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: does this work for you? | 17:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: good question | 17:48 |
| mestery | The only issue Barbican is in incubation :) | 17:48 |
| mestery | Hopefully out of Incubation soon. | 17:48 |
| nati_ueno | yes | 17:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: yes good point | 17:48 |
| nati_ueno | so we need driver archtecture for this management | 17:48 |
| enikanorov_ | yep, that will solve the issue | 17:48 |
| mestery | +1 nati_ueno | 17:48 |
| nati_ueno | we will need db impl for some time | 17:48 |
| mestery | With the end goal of moving it all to Barbican. | 17:48 |
| nati_ueno | and also barbarian impl | 17:48 |
| * SumitNaiksatam thinks similar issue to Service VMs being in stackforge | 17:49 | |
| nati_ueno | yes | 17:49 |
| enikanorov_ | nati_ueno: i think a part of neutron community is against db impl | 17:49 |
| mestery | +1 SumitNaiksatam | 17:49 |
| mestery | YEs | 17:49 |
| mestery | DB implementation will have challenges. Is there an alternative? | 17:49 |
| nati_ueno | enikanorov_: yes, so they can choose barbarian impl | 17:49 |
| german_ | barbican +1 | 17:49 |
| enikanorov_ | nati_ueno: i think the main point is security concerns | 17:49 |
| nati_ueno | enikanorov_: it depends on how we define system security | 17:49 |
| enikanorov_ | that better be avoided rather then offered as a "unsecure option" | 17:50 |
| nati_ueno | enikanorov_: I don't think it is unsecure option | 17:50 |
| nati_ueno | enikanorov_: If DB ID/PW get stolen, it is same | 17:50 |
| nati_ueno | enikanorov_: But I do agree there are more secure option | 17:50 |
| nati_ueno | enikanorov_: I'm new to barbarian, so I'm still not sure how it is more secure than db impl yet | 17:51 |
| banix | barbarian :) | 17:51 |
| enikanorov_ | :) | 17:51 |
| nati_ueno | oops typo | 17:51 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:51 | |
| * SumitNaiksatam thinks that ^^^ was coming :-) | 17:51 | |
| mestery | ;) | 17:51 |
| banix | I thought that was the name first time I saw it | 17:51 |
| nati_ueno | he he he | 17:52 |
| nati_ueno | anyway, let's decide the option | 17:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: so is this the plan of record to use barbician, or are we still evaluating this? | 17:52 |
| nati_ueno | (1) Jump to Barbican (2) have two option | 17:52 |
| mestery | I think we should plan to move to barbican, if we need a stopgap, that's what we can discuss on the ML still. | 17:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: have you evaluated using barbician? | 17:52 |
| nati_ueno | so (1) ? | 17:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *barbican | 17:53 |
| nati_ueno | oops | 17:53 |
| mestery | nati_ueno: 1 | 17:53 |
| mestery | I think | 17:53 |
| nati_ueno | Sure, so we don't need driver arch here | 17:54 |
| nati_ueno | let's have a Barbican manager in the neutron | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok for now the plan of record is to use barbican, i was hoping Swami would have been able to chime in | 17:55 |
| german_ | BTW barbican is two way it can also notify that a cert has changed | 17:55 |
| *** SridarK has quit IRC | 17:55 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_, mestery: perphaps you can notify the LBaaS team as well | 17:55 |
| german_ | aka new certs comes barbican kicks off a new LB | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | german_: ok good to know | 17:55 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: Yes, we will do that. | 17:55 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: sure... | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery enikanorov_: thanks | 17:56 |
| mestery | That's all for me on keys/certs, thanks SumitNaiksatam! | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i did not mention VPNaaS since i think we have the entire team here (nati_ueno and pcm_ :-P) | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: thanks much for joining | 17:56 |
| nati_ueno | he he, so we agreed on how we store cert | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | next topic | 17:56 |
| nati_ueno | how we save it on the file system? | 17:56 |
| pcm_ | SumitNaiksatam: No idea, but I haven't work w/cert stuff. | 17:57 |
| nati_ueno | plain? or it should be encrypted? | 17:57 |
| nati_ueno | I don't know how we can encrypt & automation yet | 17:57 |
| banix | who else uses barbican? | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: we need a library in neutron? | 17:58 |
| nati_ueno | SumitNaiksatam: library for what? | 17:58 |
| mestery | nati_ueno: These are all good questions, I'm not sure. | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: good question, they will face the same issue | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: to do the encryption | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | perhaps this is for oslo? | 17:59 |
| nati_ueno | mestery: he he I'm expecting your nice answer | 17:59 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: hoping they have already and have a solution/lib | 17:59 |
| mestery | nati_ueno: :P | 17:59 |
| *** SridarK has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:59 | |
| nati_ueno | SumitNaiksatam: even if we encrypt it, how we manage the key for encription | 17:59 |
| mestery | nati_ueno: More discussion needed here. :) | 17:59 |
| nati_ueno | ya, it is more than this meeting timeslot | 17:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | german_: anyone else uses barbican today? | 17:59 |
| nati_ueno | so let's keep discussion in the ML | 17:59 |
| enikanorov_ | ...after we know some more about barbican :) | 18:00 |
| mestery | nati_ueno: +1 | 18:00 |
| german_ | Rackspace does and some at HP are evaluating | 18:00 |
| *** hemanthravi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:00 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | german_: ok perhaps we have more questions for you | 18:00 |
| mestery | german_: Good to know! | 18:00 |
| nati_ueno | german_: cool! where is good how-to doc? | 18:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action nati_ueno mestery Swami to take barbican support and local cert/key management discussion to mailer | 18:01 |
| german_ | I will check with and get back to you via mailing list | 18:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #undo | 18:01 |
| nati_ueno | german_: Thanks!! | 18:01 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Action object at 0x3800dd0> | 18:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | : #action nati_ueno mestery german_ Swami to take barbican support and local cert/key management discussion to mailer | 18:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Flavors Framework | 18:01 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Flavors Framework (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 18:01 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83055 | 18:02 |
| *** Tufin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:02 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: noticed that updated based on comments till date | 18:02 |
| enikanorov_ | i've pushed pretty much complete description | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: thanks | 18:02 |
| enikanorov_ | yes | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | did anyone get a chance to review the latest revision? | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am unfortunately behind on this | 18:02 |
| german_ | so am I | 18:03 |
| nati_ueno | This is the spec https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90070/ | 18:03 |
| enikanorov_ | so i think we had a consensus on general idea | 18:03 |
| enikanorov_ | nati_ueno: oh, thanks | 18:03 |
| enikanorov_ | you're right | 18:03 |
| german_ | there were some discussions about not using the word flavor | 18:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: thanks, sorry i mixed up the links | 18:03 |
| enikanorov_ | so i think what still worth discussing is how to specify capabilities in flavor object | 18:03 |
| enikanorov_ | and probably how to match them | 18:03 |
| enikanorov_ | german_: i think majority is in favor of 'flavor' | 18:04 |
| enikanorov_ | because it's similar concept to nova's | 18:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: so elaborate on “capabilities"? | 18:04 |
| german_ | also I am wondering how the flavor system relates to the nova scheduler (GANT) which is being spun off and can select a machine "flavor" | 18:04 |
| * nati_ueno put review the spec in today's todo | 18:04 | |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: it's a list of (name, value) pairs that flavor object is keeping | 18:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: thanks | 18:04 |
| enikanorov_ | german_: it's same idea | 18:05 |
| banix | enikanorov_: you mean issues like wildcarding the match? | 18:05 |
| enikanorov_ | german_: it's described in the spec btw, scheduling part | 18:05 |
| german_ | thanks -- neat | 18:05 |
| enikanorov_ | banix: i don't think we need to support wildcarding, but it's an interesting option | 18:05 |
| enikanorov_ | haven't thought of it | 18:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: wouldnt wild card be the default option, so to say? | 18:06 |
| german_ | so we are evaluating GANTT for that (https://github.com/openstack/gantt) | 18:06 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: a good question | 18:07 |
| *** beyounn has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:07 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | german_: good to know | 18:07 |
| enikanorov_ | i think i need to work more on defaults and migration | 18:07 |
| pcm_ | how do the flavors get expressed by the client? dict? wondering how easy to specify for user. | 18:07 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| enikanorov_ | pcm_: falvor_id | 18:07 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:07 | |
| enikanorov_ | pcm_: right now the idea is that flavor specified by admin only | 18:08 |
| pcm_ | enikanorov_: so flavors created separately, and then specify by ID | 18:08 |
| enikanorov_ | yes | 18:08 |
| enikanorov_ | user just lists them and specifies the id | 18:08 |
| pcm_ | gotcha | 18:08 |
| hemanthravi | doesn't the user have to specify a key/value to find a matching flavor | 18:09 |
| enikanorov_ | there's a small discussion on that in the 1st patchset between me and salvatore | 18:09 |
| enikanorov_ | hemanthravi: no, and btw, key-value is apparently a wrong name for capability | 18:09 |
| pcm_ | enikanorov_: will look at it. | 18:09 |
| enikanorov_ | it's better to say (name, value) | 18:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: :-) | 18:09 |
| banix | matching happens on selecting providers | 18:09 |
| enikanorov_ | it's just because names can duplicate | 18:10 |
| enikanorov_ | keys imply uniqueness | 18:10 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ah got it | 18:10 |
| hemanthravi | banix: isn't flavor the mech to select a provider? | 18:10 |
| pcm_ | enikanorov_: so flavor would contain "provider" info, so that feature could then select the driver? | 18:10 |
| *** reaperhulk has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:11 | |
| enikanorov_ | pcm_: not necessarily | 18:11 |
| enikanorov_ | pcm_: but that's possible | 18:11 |
| pcm_ | enikanorov_: trying to understand how to support providers | 18:11 |
| banix | hemanthravi: yes but the user does not specify the list of name values | 18:11 |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: of course, even with "value", you can have multiple providers matching the criteria | 18:11 |
| enikanorov_ | pcm_: you can create flavor that will point to provider, btw, that was implemented as an example in PoC patch | 18:11 |
| enikanorov_ | s3wong: you can. you select some provier that satisfies all capabilities | 18:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: based on “vendor” name (per pcm_’s question)? | 18:12 |
| enikanorov_ | pcm_: look at UTs: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83055/ | 18:12 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes, like that | 18:12 |
| banix | *possible* | 18:12 |
| pcm_ | enikanorov_: will do | 18:13 |
| enikanorov_ | that's just if some admin want to imitate existing workflow with providers | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok, lets get some more eyes and comments on this gerrit bp at the earliest | 18:13 |
| nati_ueno | ya, this is really important bp. | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | this is in the critical path of other work services’ work | 18:13 |
| nati_ueno | may guys depends on this | 18:13 |
| garyduan | What is the plan for current STF patch? | 18:13 |
| nati_ueno | yep | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so either we all agree on this and move ahead, or we suggest improvements at the earliest | 18:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we cannot linger in this state for too long | 18:14 |
| enikanorov_ | garyduan: id like STF to be integrated with services | 18:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_ has done his job by posting the review, we all need to respond | 18:14 |
| enikanorov_ | garyduan: as you remember, you need to move provider out of API, but preserve it as a dispatching mechanism | 18:14 |
| hemanthravi | banix: got it, flavor-id is the list of name/value pairs to find a provider | 18:14 |
| garyduan | enikanorov_: yes, I understand the flow | 18:15 |
| enikanorov_ | garyduan: i think in such variant the patch should be fine with those (like Mark) who -1ed it | 18:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: do we have consensus with the other cores on using the STF at the backend? | 18:15 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: not yet i think | 18:15 |
| garyduan | so we wait for for flavor framework | 18:16 |
| german_ | no, I need to see how it relates to gantt since we have a complex scheduling environment | 18:16 |
| german_ | will put my comments in today | 18:16 |
| garyduan | wait for flavor framework to get in first? | 18:16 |
| enikanorov_ | german_: it doesn't | 18:16 |
| pcm_ | so STF selects driver based on provider on backend, and flavors gives a way to select provider (based on caps or vendor selection)? | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: do you mention STF integration in the bp? | 18:16 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: no | 18:16 |
| * pcm_ needs to look at the PoC | 18:16 | |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: integration is needed to actually apply Flavors to fwaas/vpnaas | 18:17 |
| nati_ueno | enikanorov_: yep | 18:17 |
| enikanorov_ | but it isn't needed to implement API, DB and common code for plugins part | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: actually that should be fine since we can have that discussion independent of the user facing flavors abstraction | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: yes | 18:17 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: agree | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok, all please comment on the review | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Service context with Service Interfaces | 18:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Service context with Service Interfaces (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 18:18 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #undo | 18:18 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x38ad890> | 18:18 |
| garyduan | enikanorov_, SumitNaiksatam: so if STF is to be the backend, get STF in, hide provider selection is one path to move forward | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Service Insertion with Service Interfaces | 18:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Service Insertion with Service Interfaces (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 18:18 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: i agree | 18:18 |
| enikanorov_ | garyduan: right | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AlEockwk0Ir267U9uFDc-Q6vYsWiAcAoKtCJM0Jc5UI/edit# | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: you want to update on the latest round of discussions? | 18:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we will have to keep it quick since we have a couple of other agenda items | 18:19 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: sure, a quick update. | 18:19 |
| Kanzhe | There are some feedback on serviceInsertion proposal. | 18:19 |
| * nati_ueno may be,, neutron-spec police is comming | 18:20 | |
| Kanzhe | The main point is to introduce an new object that can be used as service insertion point. | 18:20 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 18:20 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: gerrit spec is coming soon, until then we will bribe the police :-) | 18:20 |
| Kanzhe | It could be a neutron port, or extended to L1 port in the future. | 18:21 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:21 | |
| Kanzhe | I will update the doc and convert to BP in gerrit later the week. | 18:21 |
| nati_ueno | Kanzhe: Thanks! | 18:21 |
| *** beyounn has quit IRC | 18:22 | |
| Kanzhe | over. :-) | 18:22 |
| SridarK | Kanzhe: the doc in its current form is close to the last round of discussions ? | 18:22 |
| banix | Kanzhe: thanks | 18:22 |
| Kanzhe | Not yet. didn't have time to update with the latest design. | 18:22 |
| s3wong | Kanzhe: are we merging serviceBase and serviceInterface into one spec? | 18:22 |
| Kanzhe | Will do it later today. | 18:22 |
| Kanzhe | I think so. | 18:23 |
| banix | s3wong: Kanzhe combining makes sense | 18:23 |
| SridarK | Kanzhe: ok will wait on that | 18:23 |
| Kanzhe | s3wong: +1 | 18:23 |
| s3wong | banix Kanzhe: cool | 18:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | the only reason they might be different is if they need to first make things backward compatible | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we need to think through | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and will need input from enikanorov_ and nati_ueno on this | 18:24 |
| banix | good point; wasnt thinking about that | 18:24 |
| nati_ueno | SumitNaiksatam: Sure! | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | with regards to LBaaS and VPNaaS | 18:24 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: OK, makes sense | 18:25 |
| enikanorov_ | things aer quite complex on lbaas front :) | 18:25 |
| banix | ythat conversation should happen before the submission to review. no? | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: :-) | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: yes, that is hte reason we are doing this on gdoc | 18:25 |
| banix | yup | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | to at least get some critical mass to converge on the basic idea | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | perhaps we need some explanation in the doc for this | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i guess Kanzhe will follow up | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | next topic | 18:26 |
| banix | yeah; in this particular case we need VPNaaS and LBaaS onboard | 18:26 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: yes. | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: thanks | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: btw, forgot to mention thanks for the earlier update on flavors | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Port Chaining Proposal | 18:27 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Port Chaining Proposal (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 18:27 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bk1e8-diE1VnzlbM8l479Mjx2vKliqdqC_3l5S56ITU/edit | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves jsoares: there? | 18:27 |
| cgoncalves | \o/ | 18:27 |
| jsoares | yup | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | you will see that this is incorporated into the bigger plan | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | does everyone agree with this as the traffic steering building block? | 18:28 |
| cgoncalves | so this week we got some feedback from some of you (thanks!) | 18:28 |
| *** Tufin has quit IRC | 18:28 | |
| cgoncalves | and we've removed the idea of Flow and Endpoint as per SumitNaiksatam suggestion | 18:28 |
| jsoares | updates that lead to relevant updates :) | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves jsoares: thanks | 18:29 |
| *** rustlebee has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:29 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | so if there are no major objections, cgoncalves and jsoares can move this to the gerrit bp process | 18:30 |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 18:30 | |
| *** samchoi has quit IRC | 18:30 | |
| *** jamie_h has quit IRC | 18:31 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i also think this is an independent peice, so can be worked on in parallel | 18:31 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: yes, that would be the next move I suppose. if all agree, I will do it this week | 18:31 |
| nati_ueno | Is service chain still needed even if we have GP? | 18:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: yes | 18:31 |
| banix | nati_ueno: yes | 18:31 |
| nati_ueno | :) | 18:32 |
| hemanthravi | yes on the service_chain | 18:32 |
| Swami | Yes +1 | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: we tried to explain that a little in the high level document | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: the service chain abstraction can make use of the traffic sterring abstraction | 18:33 |
| nati_ueno | so if we have a chain or graph of services in the contract policy rule action, we can do this, right? | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: are you referring to group policy? | 18:33 |
| nati_ueno | yes | 18:33 |
| banix | at least as GP is defined now we refer to a service chain as defined in services | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: yeah | 18:34 |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 18:34 | |
| nati_ueno | banix: yeah, but isn't it more simple? | 18:34 |
| cgoncalves | service chain will rely on port chain, and GP on service chain. that's the plan if i'm not mistaken | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and that service chain in turn might use the traffic steering to actually achieve the chain | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: yeah, meant to say that | 18:34 |
| banix | nati_ueno: it is easier to use a chain defined elsewhere :) | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: agree | 18:35 |
| s3wong | nati_ueno: we don't really define service chain in GP; only that the policy enforced between a group going to another group | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: agree | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | okay we running over time | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: we can perhaps take this offline? | 18:35 |
| banix | nati_ueno: we have thought of what I think you are suggesting though. | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i have one more agenda item | 18:35 |
| nati_ueno | hmm I'm worring about resource model getting really complex.. | 18:35 |
| nati_ueno | do we have complete horizon wireframe for this? | 18:36 |
| banix | nati_ueno: agree but at least this way there is a seperation … | 18:36 |
| banix | nati_ueno: what is a wireframe? | 18:36 |
| nati_ueno | banix: a wireframe is a design of UI workflow | 18:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: we are looking for a volunteer to do horizon work, do you want to volunteer? :-) | 18:37 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: sorry you wanted to discuss something else | 18:37 |
| nati_ueno | banix: you can see example in tripleo-ui | 18:37 |
| nati_ueno | SumitNaiksatam: ya, if I can understand models :) | 18:37 |
| *** Tufin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:37 | |
| nati_ueno | SumitNaiksatam: so please help me | 18:37 |
| banix | nati_ueno: do you have a pointer? is that part of dashboard already? | 18:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: only if you are willing to :-) | 18:37 |
| nati_ueno | SumitNaiksatam: I do! | 18:37 |
| banix | nati_ueno: you got it! :) | 18:38 |
| SridarK | "I do" famous words often said and regretted later :-) | 18:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: on a more serious note, ronak who is not here, has volunteered for horizon support | 18:38 |
| nati_ueno | banix: this is ample http://ask-openstackux.rhcloud.com/question/95/tripleo-ui-resource-management/ | 18:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but we are going off topic here | 18:38 |
| banix | nati_ueno: great. thx. | 18:38 |
| nati_ueno | SridarK: he he he | 18:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we have group policy meeting tomorrow where we can bring this up | 18:38 |
| nati_ueno | SridarK: in that case, Kyle do it | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves jsoares thanks for the update | 18:39 |
| SridarK | nati_ueno: :-) | 18:39 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: thank you for bringing this up in the first place ;-) | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Atlanta Design Summit session | 18:39 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Atlanta Design Summit session (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 18:39 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | we have a 40 min session | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | its shared between this discussion including flavors and another proposal | 18:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link http://junodesignsummit.sched.org/event/b16e5bab304eb57baef9188a081ed962#.U2EyFa1dX3A | 18:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think schedule is subject to change | 18:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | since time is short for a long discussion such as this | 18:40 |
| nati_ueno | how about to use the time with reviewing gerrit? | 18:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | it will help to prepare as much in advance as possible | 18:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | nati_ueno: yeah sure | 18:41 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: can we have only a subset of topics dicussed today in the design session or you think we need all? | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i agree, thats what i meant by lets plan | 18:41 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: what are you proposing? | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets decide as a team as to what needs the attention of the face-to-face discussion with the rest of the community | 18:41 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: Can we atleast get a solid buy in on Service Insertion at the bare minimum ? | 18:42 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: considerring the limitted time, should we focus on the core issues … yes | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK banix: yes | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: i am just throwing it up for your suggestions | 18:42 |
| banix | s3wong: we wont have time to cover all these topics | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | if we start with the flavors topic, that in itseld might consume the whole session | 18:43 |
| german_ | yep | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so we need to balance | 18:43 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: obviously with only potentially 15 or so miniutes, we can't do service base definition, service insertion, and service chaining :-) | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: :-) | 18:43 |
| hemanthravi | SumitNaiksatam: 1,2,3 from your doc https://docs.google.com/a/oneconvergence.com/document/d/1hshzNDfBrMj7C_3HnVaUlMSuAzea9MI7S3wLKH5eJmc/edit# | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hemanthravi: ok | 18:43 |
| banix | service definition and insertion to begin with | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so if we have topics in gerrit review prior to the summit, at least we will have a head start | 18:44 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: Let's get all the gerrit BPs in place. Maybe the ones with least discussion needs to be discussed. | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe banix: sure | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok i wanted to plant the seed and solicit ideas | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are 15 minutes over! | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks all for your participation | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | until next week, bye! | 18:45 |
| german_ | thanks | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #endmeeting | 18:45 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: we won’t reach a consensus during the session anyways so we may want to think of gerrit plus some one on ones, etc as well | 18:45 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 18:45 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Apr 30 18:45:30 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:45 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-04-30-17.32.html | 18:45 |
| banix | byes | 18:45 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-04-30-17.32.txt | 18:45 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-04-30-17.32.log.html | 18:45 |
| *** german_ has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:45 | |
| Swami | bye | 18:45 |
| SridarK | bye | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: absolutely | 18:45 |
| nati_ueno | bye! | 18:45 |
| s3wong | bye guys! | 18:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: it will be very difficult to get consensus in short time | 18:46 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: yeah | 18:46 |
| garyduan | no FWaaS meeting today? | 18:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: yes, starting now | 18:46 |
| garyduan | :-) | 18:46 |
| *** beagles has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:47 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: sorry for holding up :-P | 18:47 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: not at all | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #startmeeting Networking FWaaS | 18:47 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Apr 30 18:47:44 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:47 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:47 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 18:47 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'networking_fwaas' | 18:47 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 18:47 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic STF patch | 18:48 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "STF patch (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 18:48 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | btw, SridarK garyduan, still here? | 18:48 |
| garyduan | yes | 18:48 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:48 | |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes here | 18:48 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 18:49 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | sorry for the delay | 18:49 |
| SridarK | no worries | 18:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: thanks for taking the effort on the STF patch | 18:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: you saw some of the discussions on flavors | 18:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: i am hoping that STF will stil be used | 18:50 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: I think it will, right? | 18:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: enikanorov_ is proposing that | 18:50 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: eventually need to map to driver | 18:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: i am not sure everyone is on board though | 18:50 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:51 | |
| SridarK | i guess only the mapping part will change ? | 18:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: if we like that idea we should push for it | 18:51 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: the alternative is everyone write their plugin | 18:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: true, some changes | 18:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: yeah, that should not be the only option | 18:51 |
| *** hemanthravi has quit IRC | 18:51 | |
| SridarK | garyduan: SumitNaiksatam perhaps from a vendor perspective we need to start with writing as a svc plugin | 18:52 |
| SridarK | and refactor when this becomes avail ? | 18:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: certainly an option, perhaps will illustrate to the community the need for the framework, once they see common code | 18:52 |
| enikanorov_ | SridarK: that would be quite difficult | 18:52 |
| enikanorov_ | SridarK: i think you need to target a driver from the beginning | 18:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but certainly helps vendors to make progress | 18:53 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: agree only on timing of release cycles for products | 18:53 |
| enikanorov_ | moving from plugin to driver can be difficult | 18:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: the concern here is that the vendors have not been able to make progress in the entire icehouse cycle | 18:53 |
| enikanorov_ | as you need to deprecate, change deployment practive, etc | 18:53 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: rather i meant that is the only reason to take that extreme approach | 18:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: and there is stil no clear path for them in Juno | 18:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: if there is a way to provide enough evidence that they can get a driver out based on a framework, within Juno, we are forcing them to take this extreme approach | 18:54 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: i think that's a management problem. we need to bring those who 'not onboard' to our meetings or to propose alternative approaches | 18:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i agree there is a process issue | 18:55 |
| enikanorov_ | otherwise it all can be unproductive. And i personally think that issue is no big deal from impl perspective | 18:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are having meetings in the community including this one | 18:55 |
| enikanorov_ | but rather important from UX perspective | 18:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | not sure what more to do to get people to participate | 18:56 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: yeah, but I noticed that bps are getting reviewed by whole oother group of people :) | 18:56 |
| enikanorov_ | (then who attend the meetings i mean) | 18:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i believe you are saying that those review bps dont attend these meetings | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i agree | 18:57 |
| enikanorov_ | yep | 18:57 |
| SridarK | I do hope we can get this adopted and agreed upon even if we start getting it out in phases | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i think the people who attend the meetings should commet on the reviews and reference the discussion in the meetings | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *comment | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | anyway | 18:57 |
| *** jsoares has quit IRC | 18:57 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 18:57 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | we digressed a bit | 18:58 |
| SridarK | sorry | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: so you plan to bring up the STF tie in as separate bp spec? | 18:58 |
| enikanorov_ | oh... | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: no, not at all | 18:58 |
| enikanorov_ | i can take it, but i'm not sure i'll have enough bandwidth for this | 18:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: understandable | 19:01 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: The notion of keeping STF is good - so with garyduan: 's work for fwaas - vendors have something to work against - i think that will be easier to digest | 19:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: agree | 19:01 |
| enikanorov_ | i think basically we need to work with mark macclain to resolve his concerns | 19:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan SridarK: any chance that you will have the bandwidth to refactor STF? | 19:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ok | 19:01 |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| *** peristeri has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: no problem | 19:01 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: i can help some - but i may get oversubscribed - we can talk offline | 19:01 |
| * SumitNaiksatam thinks this is quite a bit of a heavy protocol to have to individually reach out to people | 19:01 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan SridarK: good | 19:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: lets bring this up with the PTL, what say? | 19:02 |
| enikanorov_ | yes sure | 19:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action SumitNaiksatam enikanorov_ to reach out to mestery and mark mcclain to sort out the future of the service provider framework | 19:03 |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 19:03 | |
| mestery | https://wiki.opendaylight.org/images/HostedFiles/Fedora20_ODL_OpenStack.zip | 19:03 |
| *** sdague has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:03 | |
| * SumitNaiksatam happy to see mestery participate in some way in FWaaS :-) | 19:05 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | on next topic | 19:05 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: Yes me too! | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: we wanted to reach out to you regarding the service provider framework | 19:05 |
| pcm_ | wondering about STF for VPNaaS as well | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | pcm_: good | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: wondering if this meeting is a good time, or we should send you an meail | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | 19:05 | |
| pcm_ | Nachi had a review (and I had client code), but both nixed in icehouse | 19:06 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: Lets see what we can cover her | 19:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | the firewall and the VPN vendors are having a really tough time integrating their drivers | 19:06 |
| pcm_ | Guess we should have a common solution for all services (and maybe push up to common code)? | 19:06 |
| pcm_ | SumitNaiksatam: yeah, that be me | 19:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | they have tried to use the service time framework (which is now evolving to flavors) before, but their patches are on hold now | 19:06 |
| Swami | SumitNaiksatam: yes you are right, we need to have the Framework sorted out for the services. | 19:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | pcm_ Swami: yes | 19:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: so while we are making progress with the flavors discussion | 19:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: how that ties in to the backed provider is not clear | 19:07 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: OK. Any plans there or ideas? | 19:07 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: enikanorov_ has been suggesting that we reuse the existing service type framework for that | 19:08 |
| mestery | That makes some sense. :) | 19:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: others seem to be in agreement | 19:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: can you share your thoughts? or what the objections are? | 19:08 |
| enikanorov_ | mestery: there's however some specifics. right now STF has a bit of public API | 19:08 |
| enikanorov_ | and that bit is not quite suitable for public clouds | 19:08 |
| enikanorov_ | so we just remove it in favow of flavor framework | 19:09 |
| enikanorov_ | *in favor | 19:09 |
| enikanorov_ | but STF is also a dispatching mechanism from rest calls to vendor drivers | 19:09 |
| enikanorov_ | that part is really useful | 19:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: so your proposal is to refactor that part and keep it | 19:10 |
| *** TravT|2 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:10 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i also have not see any alterante proposal | 19:10 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: exactly | 19:10 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: also if this keeps the plugin - driver i/f reasonably intact except for the provider scheduling aspect - something to start off with | 19:11 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: some of the firewall team members participating here and representing vendors are suggesting that they might have to take extreme approach of creating vendor specific service plugins if they dont have a resolution to this | 19:11 |
| *** TravT has quit IRC | 19:11 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: i am guessing this is the same with VPNaaS as well | 19:12 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: Understood. So is hte issue we need to get the framework merged soon? | 19:12 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: perhaps "reasonably" is a bit of a stretch but atleast something to start with | 19:12 |
| enikanorov_ | i think that approach is not good, it will create a lot of contention once API will develop | 19:12 |
| enikanorov_ | SridarK: it will keep plugin and driver's interface | 19:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: i believe the issue is that there is some opposition to keeping that part of the STF | 19:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i am articulating the issue correctly? | 19:13 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam enikanorov_: Understood. | 19:13 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: as far as i understand, the concern is about user allowed to chose implementation (vendor) | 19:13 |
| pcm_ | same issue with VPNaaS, currently, no way to support mutiple providers. | 19:13 |
| enikanorov_ | so it's about implementation typesbeing exposed | 19:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: but you are addressing that with the flavors framework | 19:13 |
| enikanorov_ | once we hide it behind flavors - we still can leverage dispatching mechanism of STF | 19:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: so ideally once that is addressed there should not be an issue with using STF in the backend | 19:14 |
| enikanorov_ | still can = still should | 19:14 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 19:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: ok it seems like we need your nod on this | 19:14 |
| garyduan | I think it's the most feasible way | 19:14 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: so right now i'm suggesting to merge the patch STF+fwaas, removing 'provider' from public API | 19:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: agree | 19:15 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: it's 'noop' from functionality perspective, but a basis for flavors applied to fwaas | 19:15 |
| SridarK | this seems like a light at the end of the tunnel :-) | 19:15 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: OK, understood. Doing 2 meetings at once now, apologies. :) | 19:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: no worries, at least you are listening to us :-) | 19:15 |
| mestery | :) | 19:15 |
| SridarK | mestery: u need to clone urself :-) | 19:15 |
| mestery | SridarkK: :P | 19:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: :D | 19:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_ garyduan: i think we should push forward with the proposal | 19:16 |
| pcm_ | So, once flavors is avail, we'll have the selection (UI) component. in the meantime use the same method of selecting (sole) default provider in neutron.conf? | 19:16 |
| *** Kanzhe has quit IRC | 19:16 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | pcm_: i would think so | 19:16 |
| enikanorov_ | pcm_: yes | 19:17 |
| pcm_ | sounds good to me... hsip it :) | 19:17 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: if this flies then it will be refactoring a STF implementation to flavors | 19:17 |
| pcm_ | ship | 19:17 |
| enikanorov_ | SridarK: not exactly | 19:17 |
| enikanorov_ | SridarK: STF is a bit of different part of mechanism | 19:17 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: | 19:18 |
| enikanorov_ | STF is about dispatchin rest calls to drivers | 19:18 |
| enikanorov_ | Flavors is about cheduling service instance to a driver and to a backend | 19:18 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: agree at least better than svc plugin to flavors | 19:18 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: that is what i meant | 19:18 |
| enikanorov_ | ok | 19:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: can we have a short write up of how the STF refactoring should happen in your opinion? | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i know you are swamped | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: but we need to be on the same page | 19:19 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes, will do | 19:19 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: should i post it to neutron spec? | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok good, enikanorov_ thanks | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: sure | 19:19 |
| enikanorov_ | ok | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we can then decide, who can take that up | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: perhaps you can follow up on that | 19:20 |
| Swami | enikanorov_: that would be nice | 19:20 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: ok | 19:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action enikanorov_ to post STF refactor proposal | 19:20 |
| SridarK | enikanorov_: perhaps a few of us can also discuss at some point during the summit | 19:20 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: I will submit the spec to gerrit | 19:20 |
| enikanorov_ | SridarK: sure | 19:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: i would hope we sort this out before the summit | 19:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | that would be ideal :-) | 19:21 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes that would be best | 19:21 |
| pcm_ | +1 | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: thanks much for that | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: as well | 19:22 |
| Swami | sumit: can you include me in any offline discussion | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: of course | 19:22 |
| Swami | SumitNaiksatam: thanks | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan are you feeling more comfortable now? | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regarding STF patch that is | 19:23 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: :-) | 19:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok moving on | 19:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Firewall Zones | 19:23 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Firewall Zones (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 19:23 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: can you provide upate? | 19:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *udpate | 19:24 |
| *** Tufin has quit IRC | 19:24 | |
| SridarK | some more questions on how we want to model zones - whether as a neutron resource or we can provide this as a list of existing neutron resources (ports etc) | 19:25 |
| *** beyounn has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:25 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 19:25 | |
| SridarK | from the service context discussion perhaps as a list seems more in line ? | 19:25 |
| SridarK | Also thinking in terms of zones and service context looking at zones as a subset of where the service is inserted | 19:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: okay | 19:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: you were working on a document for this | 19:27 |
| SridarK | capturing some thoughts for perhaps an internal discussion and the push it up | 19:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am still a little bit on the fence | 19:27 |
| SridarK | yes | 19:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | it seems like an uphill battle to convince the rest of the community | 19:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we will do it if it is required | 19:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but we need to see what our priorities are | 19:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: what do you think? | 19:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: sorry, commenting without looking at the doc | 19:29 |
| garyduan | I think port is fine | 19:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: but since you mentioned that there might be an alternative | 19:29 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: are u saying for zones or more in general on services insertion etc | 19:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: ok | 19:29 |
| garyduan | for edge firewall, this concept still applies | 19:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: i meant zones | 19:29 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: no issues - want to have more discussion on this - so that is good | 19:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: with the current service insertion suggestion, we might be able to apply the service on a port | 19:30 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: ok - i think we will put in usecases across vendors and customers to what extent can be shared | 19:30 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: yes. that's why i was thinking in that direction too | 19:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ok good, and we can accordingly validate if the current service insertion suggestion help | 19:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: ok good | 19:31 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: garyduan: But we will need different FW instances for each zone pair ? | 19:31 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: but I believe there some use cases that the traditonal zone fits better | 19:31 |
| beyounn | SumitNaiksatam: just to confirm, when we apply server to ports, there also be direction info, right? | 19:32 |
| beyounn | s/server/service/ | 19:32 |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: good question | 19:32 |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:32 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: i believe if we have direction notion, then it will satisfy zones requirement? | 19:33 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: i saw direction in latest doc from Kanjie | 19:33 |
| beyounn | SumitNaiksatam: that is my feeling | 19:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: i am not completely sure about that | 19:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: so we have direction in the firewall rules, right? | 19:34 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: ok | 19:34 |
| beyounn | SumitNaiksatam: when we want is something like "from zone1 to zone2 match source_address,dest_address,port.. then reject" | 19:34 |
| beyounn | s/when/what/ | 19:35 |
| beyounn | SumitNaiksatam:but from zone2 to zone1 the rule can be different | 19:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i doubt that service insertion is going to have a directional notion | 19:35 |
| SridarK | beyounn: yes | 19:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am just trying to look up what is the notion of direction on our firewall rules | 19:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | oh actually we dont have direction | 19:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we have source and destination | 19:37 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: we only have src , dst | 19:37 |
| *** pcm_ has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:38 | |
| beyounn | how about we still stick with Zone and build test case around of it and then compare with service insertion to see if it can fit? | 19:38 |
| SridarK | we will need to overlay the notion of direction btwn zones | 19:38 |
| beyounn | s/test case/use case/ | 19:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: sure | 19:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: you are going to do that? | 19:38 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 19:38 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: beyounn garyduan: perhaps we can have some offline discussions too | 19:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: sure | 19:39 |
| beyounn | Sridark:sure | 19:39 |
| beyounn | SumitNaiksatam: how was the plan for F2F mgt? | 19:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action SridarK to work on draft of zones proposal, focussing on use case | 19:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: sure, lets take that offline | 19:39 |
| SridarK | perhaps beyounn: & I will run into each other if we are working out side ;-) | 19:40 |
| beyounn | SumitNaiksatam:ok | 19:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ah thats what you meant by offline :-) | 19:40 |
| beyounn | Sridark: Let have a beer :-) | 19:40 |
| beyounn | I have good wine in my home :-) | 19:40 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: thanks - i think some offline brainstorming will help - some dependency on service insertion will also need to be clarified so we can model accordingly | 19:41 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: beyounn; ;-) | 19:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Service Objects | 19:41 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Service Objects (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 19:41 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: we intend to target this for Juno? | 19:41 |
| beyounn | SumitNaiksatam:Still, I will write spec | 19:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: ok great | 19:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action beyounn to submit gerrit bp spec for Service Objects extension: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/fwaas-customized-service | 19:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Juno priorities and Atlanta design summit session discussion | 19:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Juno priorities and Atlanta design summit session discussion (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 19:43 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info design summit session: http://junodesignsummit.sched.org/event/72f3dc6498fa2821fab5f941b9690da9 | 19:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we have a share 40 minute slot with VPNaaS | 19:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *shared | 19:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so we will get 20 minutes | 19:44 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: it will be good if we can drive some commonality with VPN on service insertion | 19:44 |
| garyduan | Do we plan any other things in FWaaS | 19:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: we will discuss service insertion in the advanced services common requirements session | 19:45 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes agreed | 19:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: everything is up for discussion at this stage | 19:45 |
| *** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:45 | |
| garyduan | Like logging, app-id etc. | 19:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | including vendor drivers | 19:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: do we have the resources to do that? | 19:46 |
| beyounn | and address book | 19:46 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: we will have a vendor BP | 19:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: since we were blocked in icehouse, i would like be more focussed in juno to push forward | 19:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *like to | 19:47 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: agreed | 19:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we need to decide absolutely what we want to get through in Juno | 19:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | please think accordingly | 19:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we will also be looking for reviewers attention | 19:48 |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:48 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | so its not just how fast we can churn patches, we also need reviewers to be able to review them | 19:48 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: that's partly process issue | 19:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | if we put too many things out there at the same time, it dilutes reviewers attention and nothing gets in | 19:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: i think process is changing, but its a bit of everything | 19:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: so we need to be pragmatic | 19:50 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: I don't think we have time to do those things, but some discuss in F-to-F meeting might be helpful | 19:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: you yeah absolutely | 19:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: we need to have a long term road map for sure, i think we have had on | 19:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am just asking now about Juno | 19:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | what are our absolute priorities | 19:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i believe the ones we already have in flight (service insertion and STF) are the ones we have already identified | 19:51 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: IMO, zones is important | 19:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we need to decide besides those what is critical | 19:51 |
| garyduan | and beyounn's patch too | 19:52 |
| garyduan | to make FWaaS complete | 19:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: yeah | 19:52 |
| garyduan | not really complete, but cover the basis | 19:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so i would think that the realistic thing is here to first focus on the patches that we already have in flight | 19:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we need to file new blueprints for them, and that itself is going to take some more time to converge | 19:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | besides i believe both SridarK and garyduan have the vendor drivers planned as well, right? | 19:53 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 19:54 |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: yes, in our case, refactor | 19:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so thats going to be a handful between 3 or 4 people | 19:54 |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 19:55 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | and considering the limited reviewer attention we get | 19:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i would propose that we focus on these things which are in flight first, and once we the blueprints are re-approved, code patches are resubmitted, we can potentially think of any new features we can try to target for juno | 19:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we can definitely have discussions on features in longer term road map, but that would be proposed priority - first get our existing patches reviewed and merged | 19:56 |
| garyduan | yes | 19:57 |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:57 | |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: sure and we can continue more offline discussions too | 19:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | if we can get that far, that will be a huge step forward compared to icehouse :-) | 19:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: absolutely | 19:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok lets, starting thinking in terms of the couple of topics that we might want to bring up in the summit discussion | 19:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we also need to create an etherpad | 19:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | anyone want to do that? | 19:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | or else i can do it | 19:58 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: I can do it | 19:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: great | 19:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action SridarK to create design summit etherpad | 19:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | alrighty, anything more for now? | 19:59 |
| garyduan | no for me | 20:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | its been a long meeting, but i think we at least made progress on the STF discussion | 20:00 |
| SridarK | we can figure out more next steps offline then | 20:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yes | 20:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | great, thanks SridarK garyduan beyounn for joining | 20:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bye all! | 20:00 |
| garyduan | bye | 20:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Swami: as well | 20:00 |
| SridarK | Thanks and bye all | 20:00 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:00 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #endmeeting | 20:00 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 20:00 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Apr 30 20:00:53 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 20:00 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-04-30-18.47.html | 20:00 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-04-30-18.47.txt | 20:00 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-04-30-18.47.log.html | 20:00 |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:03 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 20:04 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:07 | |
| *** TravT|2 has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| *** mandeep has quit IRC | 20:21 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 20:25 | |
| -openstackstatus- NOTICE: the gate is backed up due to broken nodepool images, fix in progress (eta 22:00 utc) | 20:25 | |
| *** ChanServ changes topic to "the gate is backed up due to broken nodepool images, fix in progress (eta 22:00 utc)" | 20:25 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:25 | |
| *** TravT has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:30 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 20:30 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:32 | |
| *** rand738 has quit IRC | 20:33 | |
| *** rkukura has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:39 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 20:42 | |
| *** overlayer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:42 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 20:46 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:52 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 20:53 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:54 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 20:54 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:54 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 21:04 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 21:12 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 21:37 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:40 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 22:12 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 22:13 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 22:15 | |
| *** overlayer has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| *** Tufin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:21 | |
| *** Tufin has quit IRC | 22:25 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 22:26 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:28 | |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 22:29 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 22:39 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 22:40 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 22:43 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:45 | |
| *** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:48 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 22:58 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:58 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 22:58 | |
| *** jamielennox|away is now known as jamielennox | 23:01 | |
| *** s3wong has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:05 | |
| *** rand738 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:41 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:45 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:45 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 23:48 | |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:48 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 23:54 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!