| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 00:06 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 00:06 | |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 00:18 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 00:19 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 00:24 | |
| *** sdake_ has quit IRC | 00:41 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 00:45 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 01:08 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 01:10 | |
| *** sdake_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 01:29 | |
| *** sdake_ has quit IRC | 01:30 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 01:30 | |
| *** sdake_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 01:30 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 01:36 | |
| *** ninag has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 01:37 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 01:43 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 01:45 | |
| *** sdake_ has quit IRC | 01:51 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 01:59 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 02:07 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 02:08 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 02:12 | |
| *** jokke__ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 02:19 | |
| *** elmiko_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 02:19 | |
| *** odyssey4me_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 02:22 | |
| *** odyssey4me has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** stevemar has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** jokke_ has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** elmiko has quit IRC | 02:23 | |
| *** stevemar has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 02:24 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 02:54 | |
| *** mestery_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 03:26 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 03:26 | |
| *** mestery_ is now known as mestery | 03:28 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 03:48 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 05:59 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 06:16 | |
| *** sheel has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 06:20 | |
| *** yarkot_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 06:21 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has quit IRC | 06:43 | |
| *** yarkot_ has quit IRC | 06:52 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 08:03 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 08:17 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 09:03 | |
| *** jokke__ is now known as jokke_ | 09:33 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has quit IRC | 09:56 | |
| *** odyssey4me_ is now known as odyssey4me | 10:07 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 11:14 | |
| *** dims has quit IRC | 11:26 | |
| *** dims has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 11:27 | |
| *** sdague has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 11:49 | |
| *** markvoelker has quit IRC | 13:11 | |
| *** markvoelker has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 13:11 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 13:14 | |
| *** ninag has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 13:42 | |
| *** elmiko_ is now known as elmiko | 13:55 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 14:35 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 14:51 | |
| cdent | Anybody here to do service catalog, sdague, bknudson, annegentle ? I'm assuming this is crunch time and we should pass for now? | 15:01 |
|---|---|---|
| sdague | o/ | 15:01 |
| bknudson | hi | 15:01 |
| sdague | let's do it quick | 15:02 |
| cdent | go fer it then mr dague | 15:02 |
| sdague | #startmeeting service-catalog-tng | 15:02 |
| openstack | Meeting started Thu Mar 3 15:02:12 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is sdague. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:02 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: service-catalog-tng)" | 15:02 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'service_catalog_tng' | 15:02 |
| cdent | o/ | 15:02 |
| sdague | I will admit, due to the release crunch I have not looked at bknudson's json schema | 15:02 |
| sdague | #topic service catalog json schema | 15:02 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "service catalog json schema (Meeting topic: service-catalog-tng)" | 15:02 | |
| bknudson | I updated the schema with what we discussed a couple of weeks ago | 15:03 |
| sdague | so I'm not sure if there is any progress we can get there until things calm down on the release front | 15:03 |
| bknudson | doesn't need to be done today | 15:03 |
| sdague | ok, cool. | 15:03 |
| sdague | I mostly just wanted to checkpoint on one other thing in this meeting | 15:03 |
| sdague | #topic service types authority | 15:03 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "service types authority (Meeting topic: service-catalog-tng)" | 15:03 | |
| sdague | https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/service-types-authority | 15:04 |
| sdague | I started trying to put patches up there | 15:04 |
| sdague | doing so did raise a few interesting issues | 15:04 |
| sdague | #1 - the value of the projects field. Is this the reference implementation or a list of all implementations, and how do we verify that if it's more than one | 15:05 |
| sdague | #2 - api_reference | 15:05 |
| sdague | because keystone has no single url for API reference | 15:05 |
| sdague | and I thought that nova and keystone would be easy ones | 15:05 |
| cdent | heh | 15:05 |
| cdent | that sounds like a keystone bug | 15:05 |
| cdent | it's okay if the entry point points to multiple places | 15:06 |
| cdent | but there should be one entry point | 15:06 |
| cdent | and the schema should reflect that (the #2 part) | 15:06 |
| sdague | bknudson: how are you feeling about that? | 15:06 |
| cdent | s/scheme/authority | 15:06 |
| bknudson | I think it has to do with how the api / wadl generator works? | 15:06 |
| sdague | cdent: I tend to agree, I didn't even think of the thing as an issue until I tried to do this thing | 15:06 |
| bknudson | whatever it is that creates http://developer.openstack.org/api-ref.html | 15:06 |
| jroll | cdent ++ for single entry point | 15:06 |
| sdague | bknudson: would you be able to research that in the next week and figure out what it would take? | 15:07 |
| sdague | maybe annegentle knows more on that | 15:07 |
| annegentle | holla | 15:07 |
| bknudson | Block Storage / Cinder has the same issue | 15:07 |
| * annegentle is tripled booked at this time, what's the question? | 15:07 | |
| bknudson | glance, neutron, shared file systems | 15:08 |
| annegentle | wadl creates api-ref.html yes | 15:08 |
| annegentle | sdague: what do you mean by "keystone has no single url for API reference" | 15:09 |
| jroll | annegentle: in comments here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/286089/2 | 15:09 |
| sdague | annegentle: what url describes the keystone api? | 15:09 |
| sdague | what *single* url | 15:09 |
| annegentle | so, we've given projects a lot of leeway to define that themselves | 15:10 |
| annegentle | keystone likes specs. nova does not. etc. | 15:10 |
| annegentle | I agree with you sdague for what it's worth | 15:10 |
| bknudson | if it's the keystone spec then it's http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/index.html#identity-api-specification | 15:10 |
| sdague | annegentle: I think we need to reel that leeway in if we are trying to give a consistent stopping off point | 15:11 |
| annegentle | I think now's the time then | 15:11 |
| bknudson | maybe the conversion to swagger will make it easier to have a single api spec | 15:11 |
| annegentle | bknudson: + | 15:11 |
| bknudson | I'm working on getting keystone to generate a swagger file from the routes that are registered | 15:11 |
| sdague | ok, so I guess are we saying we start with http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/index.html#identity-api-specification | 15:12 |
| sdague | and say we really want this as something on docs.openstack.org in the future | 15:12 |
| annegentle | developer.openstack.org | 15:12 |
| sdague | right, that | 15:12 |
| sdague | I can live with that | 15:12 |
| annegentle | sdague: bknudson: tell me, if this is right, I also believe the keystone spec docs are rather narrative in nature? | 15:12 |
| sdague | annegentle: they seem to be | 15:13 |
| annegentle | ideally it'll be swagger on developer.openstack | 15:13 |
| bknudson | annegentle: they are not machine readable | 15:13 |
| annegentle | http://developer.openstack.org/draft/swagger/ | 15:13 |
| sdague | bknudson: machine readable is less important to me personally | 15:13 |
| annegentle | where the swagger is sourced I can not care about | 15:14 |
| sdague | but where would you point an end user developer that will never read keystone code | 15:14 |
| annegentle | where it's published, let's standardize | 15:14 |
| bknudson | I would point developers to http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/index.html#identity-api-specification | 15:14 |
| sdague | and you aren't concerned that you are pushing a random end user developer into all the other specs listed there | 15:15 |
| annegentle | bknudson: which devs? | 15:15 |
| annegentle | bknudson: you don't know the devs I know :) | 15:15 |
| bknudson | annegentle: anyone wanting to use the rest api | 15:15 |
| annegentle | bknudson: nah, they don't want your specs page | 15:16 |
| annegentle | bknudson: they want swagger and SDKs | 15:16 |
| sdague | ok, so can we compromise and say for the purposes of moving the authority forward | 15:16 |
| annegentle | bknudson: and really only one call matters to them | 15:16 |
| annegentle | "get me a token" | 15:16 |
| bknudson | if they wanted a python SDK I'd point them to keystoneauth1 docs. | 15:16 |
| sdague | the keystone api_reference as current specs page is a starting point | 15:16 |
| bknudson | or keystoneclient docs | 15:16 |
| sdague | and we'd like to get all these over to developer.openstack.org | 15:17 |
| bknudson | there are devs who want to know how to create users or projects. | 15:17 |
| annegentle | argh, and now a phone call brb | 15:17 |
| sdague | because if we don't move type registration forward with some compromises, we won't get the types nailed down until my daughter is in college :) | 15:17 |
| sdague | bknudson: is that good for you? | 15:18 |
| bknudson | sdague: yes | 15:18 |
| sdague | cdent: ? | 15:18 |
| * stevemar sneaks in | 15:19 | |
| cdent | sdague: yes, that's a reasonable starting point | 15:19 |
| sdague | ok | 15:19 |
| sdague | #agreed keystone api_reference will be http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/index.html#identity-api-specification to start - with the intent that a developer.openstack.org url is coming in the next cycle | 15:20 |
| sdague | ok, that was point #2 | 15:20 |
| sdague | now, point #1 | 15:20 |
| sdague | the project: field | 15:20 |
| sdague | the way I was thinking about this is that projects that are creating APIs effectively claim a type | 15:20 |
| cdent | yeah, I think I was the one who moaned that it needs to be a list | 15:20 |
| cdent | not because I think that is the _right_ thing | 15:21 |
| sdague | and the project is a reference to the project you would change to change the api for that type | 15:21 |
| cdent | but because it represents the desires of the TC, which is that it is possible to have two different implementations of the same service | 15:21 |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 15:21 | |
| sdague | cdent: right, and in those cases, there would still need to be a shared specification | 15:21 |
| sdague | which would be a repo | 15:21 |
| cdent | I see project as: where the code lives | 15:21 |
| cdent | docs: as the specification | 15:22 |
| cdent | which may be the source of confusion | 15:22 |
| sdague | ok | 15:22 |
| sdague | I was thinking of project: is where the definition is, which might be code | 15:22 |
| bknudson | the example was keystone, which is openstack/keystone, not openstack/keystone-specs | 15:22 |
| sdague | api_reference is where the user docs is | 15:22 |
| sdague | for the purposes of nicely reading about it | 15:22 |
| cdent | I'm not wed to any particular way of doing it but I feel given the mission provided to the group by the TC... | 15:23 |
| sdague | because I think that's our reality today | 15:23 |
| sdague | and I think the moment we actually hit having 2 projects trying to both implement the same API it will drive out some details | 15:23 |
| sdague | I'm not sure I know how to anticipate that | 15:23 |
| sdague | like, should ceilometer and monasca actually come together on a common api, what artifacts here do we need to describe that? | 15:25 |
| sdague | I don' tknow until I see it | 15:25 |
| sdague | here is another real world scenario I think we're going to see | 15:25 |
| sdague | type: placement, project: openstack/nova | 15:25 |
| * cdent nods | 15:26 | |
| sdague | and in 2 cycles time, project: will change | 15:26 |
| cdent | to use an sdague idiom: | 15:26 |
| cdent | honestly, I think we should structure the thing for the reality we want to create which is to ignore this crap about two projects on the same service | 15:26 |
| bknudson | so it would be better to point to the api spec rather than the project that implements the api | 15:26 |
| sdague | bknudson: part of this was about giving ownership of a type to a project | 15:27 |
| sdague | so that they would use that in their docs and defaults, and when I'm talking to neutron I know what to call it | 15:27 |
| sdague | so, I guess, is that a thing we can move on for now, with a note about "we might have to reconsider some thing if we get 2 projects on one api" | 15:29 |
| cdent | sdague++ | 15:29 |
| bknudson | we're not going to anticipate everything today anyways so just go with what works and be flexible | 15:29 |
| cdent | at the moment we are not machine reading the file anyway, so it's structure being machine readable is just a bonus. We can change it. | 15:30 |
| sdague | #agreed for now project will refer to a single project that owns the type | 15:30 |
| sdague | right | 15:30 |
| sdague | ok, so with that, I think I can redo the first 3 patches in this stack - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/286091 and get them agreed upon and landed | 15:30 |
| sdague | the last patch is about restrictions for people putting things in their service catalog that isn't in our list | 15:31 |
| sdague | and I proposed x- which I know is ripe with challenges | 15:31 |
| *** angdraug has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 15:31 | |
| sdague | perhaps we should open that up to the market place of ideas ... i.e. ops mailing list | 15:32 |
| bknudson | I like the rax: or whatever: prefix | 15:32 |
| sdague | and see what people are feeling | 15:32 |
| sdague | prefixing might be fine, we did exclude : in our normal bit | 15:32 |
| sdague | cdent: how do you feel about prefixing? | 15:32 |
| bknudson | every provider will have to use their own prefix for these nonstandard services | 15:32 |
| cdent | sdague: I wrote on that yesterday, I think prefix/namespace better than x- | 15:33 |
| cdent | but I went on at some length on the review | 15:33 |
| cdent | probably a bit rambling and confused.. | 15:33 |
| cdent | I agree that getting a feel from the field is a good idea | 15:33 |
| cdent | however | 15:33 |
| sdague | right, I think we have 2 classes of issues | 15:33 |
| cdent | I'm also not certain that the services types needs to register anything that isn't upstream | 15:33 |
| sdague | cdent: right, I don't want *us* to register them | 15:34 |
| bknudson | use dns | 15:34 |
| cdent | but the service-catalog should specify that namespaces are appropriate for things | 15:34 |
| cdent | that are local | 15:34 |
| sdague | but, I do want *us* to make it clear that you aren't allowed to make catalog entries that look official, that aren't in this list | 15:34 |
| sdague | so some indicator that this thing is definitely not in the authority | 15:35 |
| sdague | prefixing is good for the vendor case | 15:35 |
| sdague | for the "I'm a new service" case, I don't know | 15:35 |
| sdague | would we recommend x- for that? | 15:35 |
| cdent | this is the catch 22 on the _entire_ API problem space | 15:35 |
| cdent | we've made it entirely too difficult to experiment | 15:36 |
| sdague | cdent: sure | 15:36 |
| sdague | cdent: well x- | 15:36 |
| sdague | and hey, we give you a standard name when we stamp you in | 15:36 |
| bknudson | I think until they're official it should have a provider: prefix in the catalog | 15:36 |
| sdague | bknudson: what if there is no provider | 15:36 |
| sdague | it's just a new project in github that's working towards openstack inclusion | 15:36 |
| bknudson | somebody's got to be serving up the api | 15:36 |
| cdent | whether we use x- or prefix: we still present the same problem as ever: client code will already be out there | 15:37 |
| sdague | cdent: sure | 15:37 |
| bknudson | they could use my: if they want | 15:37 |
| cdent | sdague: I actually think the concern about extant code is overblown, but if we are concerned about it, it definitely applies here | 15:37 |
| sdague | cdent: ok, I guess we can also punt | 15:38 |
| cdent | I think we should just not be too precious about names: don't use one that is already registered | 15:38 |
| cdent | and don't use one that is in the do-not-use list | 15:38 |
| sdague | cdent: maybe | 15:38 |
| sdague | except when we have 3 projects building a backup service and all use the same non official name up front | 15:38 |
| bknudson | is "placement" on the do-not-use list? | 15:38 |
| cdent | sdague: that's why we have the registry | 15:38 |
| bknudson | is that too generic and it should instead be "compute-placement" ? | 15:39 |
| cdent | you can't use a name and be openstack unless you register | 15:39 |
| sdague | right, but we said you can't squat | 15:39 |
| cdent | but registration doesn't make you official | 15:39 |
| cdent | it just means you got the name | 15:39 |
| sdague | ok, lets solve the prefix bit for vendors first | 15:39 |
| cdent | right, so we evaluate on a first come first serve basis: if the api actually exists, they can probably have it | 15:39 |
| sdague | and maybe circle around after we've gone through the service list | 15:39 |
| * cdent nods | 15:39 | |
| bknudson | ok | 15:40 |
| sdague | ok, that gets us those patches landed, and hopefully lets us start grinding through more services | 15:40 |
| sdague | #action sdague to respin patch series for landing based on aggreements | 15:41 |
| sdague | ok, anything else? | 15:41 |
| bknudson | nothing else from me | 15:41 |
| cdent | nada | 15:41 |
| sdague | cool, thanks folks, that was super helpful | 15:41 |
| sdague | and we're slowly moving this ball forward | 15:41 |
| sdague | thanks for coming | 15:42 |
| sdague | #endmeeting | 15:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 15:42 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Thu Mar 3 15:42:08 2016 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:42 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/service_catalog_tng/2016/service_catalog_tng.2016-03-03-15.02.html | 15:42 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/service_catalog_tng/2016/service_catalog_tng.2016-03-03-15.02.txt | 15:42 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/service_catalog_tng/2016/service_catalog_tng.2016-03-03-15.02.log.html | 15:42 |
| *** yarkot_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 15:44 | |
| *** yarkot_ has quit IRC | 15:49 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 16:00 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 16:21 | |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 16:52 | |
| *** ninag has quit IRC | 16:57 | |
| *** ninag has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 17:01 | |
| *** ninag_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 17:02 | |
| *** ninag has quit IRC | 17:05 | |
| *** ninag_ has quit IRC | 17:06 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 17:45 | |
| *** vilobhmm111 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 17:46 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has quit IRC | 17:49 | |
| *** ninag has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 17:52 | |
| *** ninag_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 17:52 | |
| *** ninag has quit IRC | 17:56 | |
| *** vilobhmm111 has quit IRC | 18:02 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 18:08 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 18:20 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 18:26 | |
| *** cdent has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 18:31 | |
| *** sdague has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 18:32 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 18:55 | |
| *** sheel has quit IRC | 19:17 | |
| *** sdake_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 19:35 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 19:35 | |
| *** fungi is now known as backup_openstack | 19:36 | |
| *** backup_openstack is now known as fungi | 19:37 | |
| *** diablo_rojo has quit IRC | 19:48 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 19:55 | |
| *** angdraug has quit IRC | 19:57 | |
| *** sdake_ has quit IRC | 20:11 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 20:12 | |
| *** breton has quit IRC | 20:16 | |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 20:45 | |
| *** angdraug has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:21 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 21:35 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 22:00 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:00 | |
| *** yarkot_ has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:07 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has quit IRC | 22:11 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 22:11 | |
| *** yarkot_ has quit IRC | 22:16 | |
| *** ninag_ has quit IRC | 22:47 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 22:57 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 23:00 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 23:04 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has quit IRC | 23:04 | |
| *** vilobhmm11 has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 23:04 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 23:11 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 23:17 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 23:21 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 23:21 | |
| *** sdake has quit IRC | 23:22 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 23:32 | |
| *** annegentle has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 23:33 | |
| *** annegentle has quit IRC | 23:38 | |
| *** sdake has joined #openstack-meeting-cp | 23:41 | |
| *** cdent has quit IRC | 23:50 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!