| *** sarob has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** ChanServ changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 00:02 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 00:23 | |
| *** eguz has quit IRC | 00:45 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 01:29 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:32 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:36 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 01:50 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 02:03 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 02:13 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 02:35 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:01 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 03:06 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:21 | |
| *** beyounn has quit IRC | 03:23 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:30 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:33 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 03:44 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:51 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:02 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 04:05 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 04:07 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:10 | |
| *** saju_m has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:27 | |
| *** saju_m has quit IRC | 04:27 | |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 04:35 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 04:39 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:40 | |
| *** wchrisj has quit IRC | 04:43 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 04:52 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 04:55 | |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 04:57 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:57 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 04:57 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:02 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:03 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 05:08 | |
| *** HenryG_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:54 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:55 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:55 | |
| *** HenryG has quit IRC | 05:57 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 05:57 | |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 05:58 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:59 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:04 | |
| *** sdague has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:05 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 06:08 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 06:11 | |
| *** safchain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:15 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 06:17 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:22 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:23 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:24 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 06:27 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 06:38 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 06:39 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:00 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:02 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:05 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 07:10 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 07:12 | |
| *** beyounn has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:13 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 07:15 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:16 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 07:23 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 07:40 | |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:43 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:44 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:59 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:59 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:06 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 08:08 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has quit IRC | 08:09 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 08:11 | |
| *** ryanpetrello has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:11 | |
| *** beyounn has quit IRC | 08:22 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:24 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 08:28 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 08:30 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:35 | |
| *** lpetrut has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:38 | |
| *** lpetrut has quit IRC | 08:43 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:51 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:07 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 09:12 | |
| *** overlayer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:13 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:16 | |
| *** persia has quit IRC | 09:25 | |
| *** persia has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:28 | |
| *** persia is now known as Guest90043 | 09:29 | |
| *** Guest90043 has quit IRC | 09:29 | |
| *** Guest90043 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:29 | |
| *** Guest90043 is now known as persia | 09:29 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:45 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 10:00 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:08 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 10:13 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 10:21 | |
| *** mestery_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:33 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 10:36 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has quit IRC | 10:37 | |
| *** overlayer has quit IRC | 10:46 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:09 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 11:15 | |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 11:15 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:33 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:10 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 12:15 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 12:15 | |
| *** overlayer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:39 | |
| *** HenryG_ has quit IRC | 12:44 | |
| *** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:58 | |
| *** HenryG has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:08 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:11 | |
| *** alexpilotti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:14 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 13:16 | |
| *** dstanek_afk has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:21 | |
| *** mestery_ is now known as mestery | 13:22 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 13:23 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 13:32 | |
| *** peristeri has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:34 | |
| *** wchrisj has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:34 | |
| *** dstanek_afk is now known as dstanek | 13:35 | |
| *** dtroyer has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:39 | |
| *** xuhanp has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:51 | |
| *** wchrisj has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:53 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:12 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 14:14 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 14:17 | |
| *** overlayer has quit IRC | 14:29 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:30 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 14:47 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 14:51 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:13 | |
| *** jamie_h has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:13 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 15:18 | |
| *** samchoi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:18 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 15:22 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:23 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:28 | |
| mfer | #startmeeting openstack-sdk-php | 15:30 |
|---|---|---|
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Apr 16 15:30:05 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mfer. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 15:30 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 15:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 15:30 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'openstack_sdk_php' | 15:30 |
| mfer | Hello everyone. If you couple please state your name along with any association | 15:30 |
| mfer | Matt Farina, HP | 15:30 |
| samchoi | Sam Choi, HP | 15:30 |
| jamie_h | Jamie Hannaford, Rackspace | 15:30 |
| ycombinator | Shaunak Kashyap, Rackspace | 15:30 |
| glenc | Glen Campbell, Rackspace | 15:31 |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:32 | |
| 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 | I updated the agenda on the Wiki. It's simliar to the last one. | 15:33 |
| *** sjmc7 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:33 | |
| mfer | The first item was an intro if anyone new came. As it's the regular attenders I don't think we need to introduce the PHP SDK and can skip that item | 15:33 |
| mfer | So, let's move tot he second item | 15:34 |
| mfer | #topic State of the codebase | 15:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "State of the codebase (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 15:34 | |
| mfer | Since we spoke last Wednesday I did a bunch of due diligence. I spoke with others in the community about process, community, history, and looked through other projects for examples | 15:35 |
| mfer | So, it's taken a little time to do this legwork. Thanks for being patient with me. I wanted to get some good well rounded guidance. | 15:35 |
| mfer | In the community sense I didn't want to make any decisions without doing the legwork and taking time to contact others with more experience | 15:36 |
| mfer | that includes going outside HP. Please don't think that I only spoke with others at HP. I wanted a wider perspective than that | 15:36 |
| mfer | I want the PHP SDK to be something that helps OpenStack and those that use it. | 15:37 |
| mfer | All that being said... | 15:37 |
| glenc | http://www.dramabutton.com | 15:37 |
| samchoi | *drumroll* | 15:38 |
| mfer | My stance is to keep the current codebase and continue on the path of re-factoring to better support OpenStack. We have a roadmap that will get us there. | 15:38 |
| jamie_h | samchoi What do you think, Sam? | 15:38 |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:39 | |
| mfer | I'd shared that if there was a better technological solution (measurable?) or a way to get there for OpenStack far faster we should talk about it. In the past few weeks since this came up a case has not been made for that. | 15:39 |
| mfer | questions or other discussion on this point? | 15:40 |
| mfer | i'm happy to add context as needed. | 15:40 |
| jamie_h | mfer Did you read the e-mail I sent Sam? How do you respond to the three very strong points made there | 15:42 |
| samchoi | My take on all of this is that I believe that using the current codebase would be the fastest route to make a pure OpenStack SDK available. I also understand there may be dissenting opinions on design/architecture. To be quite honest, I am not so concerned with debating design/architecture and believe a compromise may be to allow other contributors to get involed and make significant changes when necessary. | 15:43 |
| glenc | Well, I disagree that it would get us broader support for OpenStack faster. If, for example, we used php-opencloud as a base, we'd have support for Nova, Swift, and Trove already, plus Heat in progress and some others. The current code base only supports Swift. Both cases would require refactoring. Plus, it already supports Guzzle. We need to understand that this decision involves stepping back and re-doing work that already exists. | 15:44 |
| mfer | jamie_h I did see the email. I used is as a starting point for some of my research. I wanted to be able to clearly understand each point. My goal is to think long term best for the community, those that use the SDK, and the project itself. | 15:44 |
| glenc | Having said that, this decision has already cost us some number of man-months. No matter what the decision, if we had made a decision earlier, we would be further along. | 15:44 |
| mfer | glenc if you don't mind i'd like to address jamie_h before i circle back to your comment. i want you do know that i'm not forgetting it but i want touch there first. | 15:45 |
| glenc | understood | 15:45 |
| jamie_h | mfer I don't understand your counter-argument to our main point about community process. All code needs to be approved through Gerrit - that's a very foundational point about contributing to OpenStack. I don't see how consulting people on a few non-OpenStack projects gets around or addresses this issue... | 15:46 |
| mfer | jamie_h the first point you brought up was the community angle. For our code we'd long used a process similar to what we do in Gerrit. So, when the codebase was put into Stackforge it was a transition not a change of pace. | 15:46 |
| mfer | if you look at a majority of projects to come into the community they start with an existing codebase that's imported. the infra process to create a new project as a mechanism to pull in an existing codebase when it's setup. it's automated | 15:47 |
| jamie_h | mfer sure, but none of the code was submitted through Gerrit. What you did before that is moot | 15:47 |
| mfer | all code that's come in since that import has gone through gerrit. this is typical. | 15:47 |
| jamie_h | mfer but we're not talking about generic projects, we're integrating into a very established larger project with rules | 15:48 |
| mfer | you can look at other example projects like barbacon, from Rackspace, and can see this in practice | 15:48 |
| jamie_h | mfer new code has, but the vast majority of existing code has not been reviewed | 15:48 |
| jamie_h | I've yet to hear a good reason to break OpenStack rules/protocol | 15:48 |
| jamie_h | apart from "it'll be faster" | 15:49 |
| mfer | from doing my due diligence here, the way this is handled is within the rules/protocols. | 15:49 |
| mfer | this is how other projects have gone in. Even project started by those at Rackspace | 15:49 |
| jamie_h | the python SDK doesn't | 15:49 |
| mfer | this is not stepping outside the process or what happens in practice | 15:49 |
| jamie_h | it is, because we're inheriting a codebase that's not gone through any review process | 15:50 |
| mfer | the python SDK is an outlier from the norm. | 15:50 |
| *** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:51 | |
| jamie_h | I disagree. It's taking a very sensible and democratic approach | 15:51 |
| mfer | So, for the first point... we're holding to the process and what has typically happened. | 15:51 |
| jamie_h | No, we're really not. Allowing unreviewed code is a clear breach of standard protocol | 15:51 |
| jamie_h | IMHO | 15:51 |
| mfer | jamie_h may I test your point quickly. So, when barbacon was brought in should all of the code been removed and the project started from scratch. it was an existing codebase that was importent. | 15:52 |
| mfer | please note, we've invited you and others to review the current codebase and file any issues found that are not already filed | 15:53 |
| jamie_h | I'm not familiar with how older projects did things, I'm focusing on how we do it according to present rules | 15:54 |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 15:55 | |
| mfer | can you point me to these present rules in writing? as of now I've heard your opinion on how we should do things. but, i've gone to others in the community with a lot of insight into the rules and the way the community operates now and historically. | 15:55 |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:56 | |
| mfer | what i've learned is that this approach is appropriate | 15:56 |
| jamie_h | mfer who exactly did you consult in the community? Have they had much exposure to OpenStack workflow? | 15:58 |
| jamie_h | My point is that a typical PHP project, for example, might have a different workflow than OpenStack | 15:58 |
| mfer | i'm not going to share names because I didn't ask them first. I will say I spoke to folks on the TC and who are PTLs | 15:59 |
| samchoi | jamie_h: can you elaborate on that? | 15:59 |
| mfer | jamie_h and others who have experience in the community outside that | 15:59 |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:00 | |
| samchoi | jamie_h: you're referring to PHP projects outside of OpenStack, correct? | 16:01 |
| *** persia has quit IRC | 16:02 | |
| *** persia has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:02 | |
| *** persia has quit IRC | 16:02 | |
| *** persia has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:02 | |
| mfer | given the time and that the conversation on this point seems to have stopped i'll move on to the second point of community | 16:02 |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:03 | |
| jamie_h | I don't think we've reached consensus yet | 16:03 |
| mfer | jamie_h at what point will we reach concensus? | 16:03 |
| jamie_h | I don't agree with any of the counter-points made here, but I agree that we need to move forward | 16:04 |
| mfer | we have 27 minutes left in this meeting, there are two other areas, and the question from glenc | 16:04 |
| ycombinator | what jamie_h said | 16:04 |
| jamie_h | This is my opinion: | 16:04 |
| ycombinator | I think we need to move on | 16:04 |
| samchoi | let's try to address the other topics quickly and come back to this? | 16:04 |
| jamie_h | Okay | 16:04 |
| jamie_h | I'm content to use the current codebase on the sole condition that everyone's open to the idea of aggressive refactoring | 16:05 |
| samchoi | jamie_h: that was my thought actually...I felt it to be a good compromise | 16:05 |
| ycombinator | yeah, I'm not seeing another way forward | 16:05 |
| mfer | jamie_h that's what we've been doing. the roadmap assumes that. | 16:06 |
| jamie_h | I don't want to be in a position were we're implicitly agreeing on the current code. So if we agree to allow people to refactor parts, it's a decent compromise | 16:06 |
| mfer | you'll notice it has guzzle4 support already | 16:06 |
| jamie_h | Sure, but I didn't know whether people might cling to certain existing concepts or areas of code | 16:06 |
| jamie_h | By being in the codebase they'll already have quasi-approval | 16:06 |
| mfer | there are definitely patterns to keep in the current code and to expand on. but, there are other things that need to change. | 16:06 |
| mfer | for example, we are working to make PSR-2 happen, we use http messages from FIG and guzzle as a default (a suggestion from jamie_h), and more | 16:07 |
| jamie_h | Okay, I'm satisfied here. Shaunak and Glen, do you have anything else to add? | 16:07 |
| ycombinator | no, lets move on | 16:08 |
| mfer | I'm happy to address the point from Glen still if needed | 16:08 |
| glenc | no need to address - | 16:08 |
| glenc | was just making the point that IMHO this is *not* the fastest way to get working code, but willing to defer that and use a slower path to get us moving | 16:08 |
| ycombinator | yeah, I think the time we are losing in figuring out fastest path > choosing A path and moving on | 16:09 |
| ycombinator | so lets move on :) | 16:09 |
| mfer | glenc note, we have a much larger codebase that implements many other services. we have months and months and months of work on that. not contributing all of that back at the onset was intentional so we could refactor things. for example, to handle multiple API versions. something that I've only seen done well in the openstack client projects | 16:10 |
| mfer | shall we move on to the near term roadmap? | 16:10 |
| jamie_h | That's untrue, we actually have a considerably bigger codebase with more public support. But this is not really important after what we've just agreed on | 16:10 |
| jamie_h | Yeah, let's move on | 16:11 |
| ycombinator | yeah, lets not rehash this; mfer: please move on to the near term roadmap | 16:11 |
| glenc | Not willing to argue the point; would rather move on | 16:11 |
| mfer | #topic Near term roadmap | 16:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Near term roadmap (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 16:12 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 16:12 | |
| mfer | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack-SDK-PHP#Short_Term_Roadmap | 16:12 |
| mfer | as per my action from the last meeting, I linked the blueprints to the roadmap | 16:12 |
| mfer | The guzzle 4 work and phpdoc change has already been completed | 16:13 |
| mfer | next up, and not on here but happening, is the shift to PSR-2 that samchoi is working on | 16:13 |
| jamie_h | samchoi how are you getting on with PSR-2? | 16:13 |
| samchoi | good, I'm reviewing diff logs from an automated tool | 16:13 |
| mfer | https://github.com/fabpot/PHP-CS-Fixer | 16:14 |
| samchoi | I'm primarily checking to see if certain coding conventions are NOT addressed by the tool | 16:14 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:14 | |
| samchoi | but all good thus far | 16:14 |
| jamie_h | if you use PhpStorm, you can do it with that too. It has a neat reformatting tool | 16:15 |
| jamie_h | you can do it across a project directory | 16:15 |
| mfer | the next item to tackle once that is done is to add multiple api version support. i'd hoped to have that done but went after Guzzle first after you suggested it. | 16:17 |
| jamie_h | mfer I think that's related to the service layer. I want to get stuck into that next week. I've nearly finalized my experimentation with json-schema, so it's at a point were we can think incorporating it | 16:18 |
| mfer | ok | 16:18 |
| mfer | i've been talking with others who've worked on doing this support in other clients on the lessons they've learned | 16:19 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 16:19 | |
| jamie_h | https://github.com/jamiehannaford/json-schema - but this might not be anything like what we could end up using | 16:19 |
| mfer | i had something in mind that would work within json schema while taking their feedback into account. i'm curious to see what you've got brewing and why | 16:19 |
| mfer | jamie_h i'll go poke around at that this afternoon | 16:19 |
| jamie_h | mfer okay. It's effectively a validator and parser for consuming schemas - but as I've said, it might not look anything like what we end up using. Just a strawman | 16:20 |
| mfer | ok | 16:20 |
| mfer | while i look forward to chatting with you about it we have 9 minutes left. you mind if we take that off meeting? | 16:21 |
| jamie_h | sure | 16:21 |
| mfer | thanks | 16:21 |
| mfer | once those areas are done we can move into extensions and service discovery while mroe services are being added and documented | 16:22 |
| mfer | there is an upcoming bottleneck of work and they we can do more in parallel | 16:22 |
| mfer | is there any questions on the roadmap? | 16:23 |
| *** xuhanp has quit IRC | 16:23 | |
| jamie_h | I don't have any | 16:23 |
| samchoi | roadmap is clear, but I'd like further clarification later on what we plan to do now (the "bottlenecks") before getting to a point where we're able to add new services in parallel | 16:24 |
| samchoi | but we can chat later | 16:24 |
| mfer | ok | 16:24 |
| mfer | #topic Bugs / Reviews | 16:24 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Bugs / Reviews (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 16:24 | |
| mfer | #link bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-sdk-php | 16:24 |
| mfer | there are two closely related bugs and nothing currently in review | 16:24 |
| mfer | the two bugs are on Sams plate to done once the PSR-2 work is complete. | 16:25 |
| mfer | if there is no discussion on this we can move to open discussion. | 16:25 |
| samchoi | ok | 16:26 |
| ycombinator | sure | 16:26 |
| mfer | the bug has to do with a default for a region name. we can't assume a default for broader openstack | 16:26 |
| glenc | k | 16:26 |
| mfer | #topic open discussion | 16:26 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 16:26 | |
| mfer | we've got about 4 minutes until the next meeting IIRC | 16:26 |
| *** tjones has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:27 | |
| jamie_h | I have nothing else to add, I think we covered the most important things during the codebase discussion | 16:27 |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 16:28 | |
| ycombinator | yeah, I'm good too | 16:28 |
| glenc | FYI I'm out next week | 16:29 |
| glenc | I'm sure you can carry on without me LOL | 16:29 |
| *** browne has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:29 | |
| tjones | you guys done? i've got to start up the next meeting. sorry to kick you out | 16:30 |
| *** jogo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:30 | |
| samchoi | think we're good | 16:30 |
| glenc | Not sure what happened to mfer | 16:30 |
| glenc | #endmeeting | 16:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 16:30 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Apr 16 16:30:57 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:30 |
| jamie_h | okay, thanks everyone. Speak next week | 16:30 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-04-16-15.30.html | 16:31 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-04-16-15.30.txt | 16:31 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-04-16-15.30.log.html | 16:31 |
| tjones | #startmeeting NovaBugScrub | 16:31 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Apr 16 16:31:13 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is tjones. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 16:31 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 16:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: NovaBugScrub)" | 16:31 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'novabugscrub' | 16:31 |
| tjones | hi - anyone around? | 16:31 |
| dansmith | I'm peripherally around | 16:31 |
| tjones | lurker ;-) | 16:31 |
| * jogo lurks | 16:31 | |
| dansmith | yes, lurking creepily in the shadows | 16:31 |
| tjones | and another one :-D | 16:32 |
| tjones | gonna be a short meeting today - i've been tagging things every day when i get a minute | 16:32 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=-*&field.status%3Alist=NEW | 16:32 |
| tjones | just 4 this am | 16:32 |
| tjones | so lets quickly get through them | 16:32 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1308418 | 16:32 |
| dansmith | tjones: the pci one, talk to yjiang5 | 16:33 |
| tjones | this one is the spice console - so "console"? | 16:33 |
| tjones | dansmith: ok will do on that one | 16:33 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1308613 | 16:35 |
| tjones | i am not sure this is true | 16:35 |
| tjones | comments? | 16:35 |
| dansmith | I don't know, | 16:36 |
| dansmith | but that guy has fixed some things recently, | 16:36 |
| dansmith | so I'm sure he'll engage, and he set himself as the assignee | 16:36 |
| tjones | ok but should the quota be decremented if this is no valid host? | 16:36 |
| dansmith | I don't know | 16:36 |
| tjones | ok | 16:37 |
| dansmith | I would think that post-delete it would be decremented | 16:37 |
| tjones | ok i'll leave it with compute. | 16:37 |
| tjones | so that is it. | 16:37 |
| tjones | i have not done anything with my action item on figuring out how to track stale and "unofficial" tagged bugs in this meeting. that is what we thought we should focus on next | 16:38 |
| tjones | so i'll try to get to that next week. | 16:38 |
| tjones | any other items? | 16:38 |
| dansmith | tjones: one more week or you're fired! | 16:38 |
| tjones | LOL | 16:38 |
| dansmith | just kidding firing you from this job would be crazy stupid :) | 16:38 |
| tjones | but it's so much fun ;-) | 16:38 |
| *** sjmc7 has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:39 | |
| dansmith | because you're a masochist :) | 16:39 |
| tjones | people are clambering for this job | 16:39 |
| dansmith | pfft, yeah right :) | 16:39 |
| tjones | so if there is nothing else we can fiinish early :-D | 16:39 |
| dansmith | woo! | 16:39 |
| tjones | my favorite kind of meeting | 16:39 |
| tjones | #endmeeting | 16:40 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 16:40 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Apr 16 16:40:22 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:40 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-04-16-16.31.html | 16:40 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-04-16-16.31.txt | 16:40 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/novabugscrub/2014/novabugscrub.2014-04-16-16.31.log.html | 16:40 |
| *** jogo has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:42 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 16:43 | |
| *** browne has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:46 | |
| *** tjones has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:55 | |
| *** wendar has quit IRC | 16:59 | |
| *** wendar has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:01 | |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 17:03 | |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:06 | |
| *** safchain has quit IRC | 17:10 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 17:11 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:11 | |
| *** beyounn has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:13 | |
| *** shivharis has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:17 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:20 | |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 17:21 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 17:23 | |
| *** hemanthravi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:27 | |
| *** overlayer_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:30 | |
| *** prasadv_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:30 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:30 | |
| cgoncalves | howdy advanced services team members! | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: hi! | 17:31 |
| *** sweston has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:31 | |
| overlayer_ | cgoncalves, hello | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | any other Neutrons out here? | 17:31 |
| s3wong | Has the meeting started? | 17:31 |
| prasadv_ | hi there | 17:32 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam, overlayer_: hi | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: hi, not yet, just waiting for critical mass to aggregate | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prasadv_: hi | 17:32 |
| enikanorov_ | hi | 17:32 |
| *** Kanzhe has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:32 | |
| kevinbenton | o/ | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_ kevinbenton : hi | 17:32 |
| s3wong | Oh, in that case. Hello | 17:32 |
| *** samchoi has quit IRC | 17:32 | |
| rkukura | hi | 17:32 |
| Kanzhe | hello. | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | kevinbenton: you trailblazer! ;-) | 17:32 |
| sweston | I'm here, btw the wiki has the wrong link ;-) | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | rkukura Kanzhe sweston: hi | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sweston: wiki? | 17:33 |
| banix | hi | 17:33 |
| sweston | https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sweston: got it, the two hashes | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sweston: feel free to fix it | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: hi, lets get started | 17:34 |
| sweston | yup yup, or just one yup | 17:34 |
| sweston | ok | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #startmeeting Networking Advanced Services | 17:34 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Apr 16 17:34:30 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:34 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:34 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: hi | 17:34 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:34 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'networking_advanced_services' | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info the new blueprint review process is in effect for neutron | 17:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032806.html | 17:35 |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 17:35 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | so if your bleuprint is not already in approved state, you will need to go through this process for approval | 17:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i know this is already stale news to some ;-) | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so our standing item for this meeting: | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Flavors Framework | 17:36 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Flavors Framework (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:36 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/83055 | 17:37 |
| enikanorov_ | yeah, so far no major updates | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_ also sent out an email a couple of days back on this: #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-April/032792.html | 17:37 |
| enikanorov_ | i'd love to try to apply the idea to some service | 17:37 |
| enikanorov_ | but i'm really blocked with that | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: you could have tried on FWaaS, but it does not have STF | 17:38 |
| enikanorov_ | what i'm interested in is the STF being integrated in fwaas or vpnaas | 17:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: otherwise FWaaS is good candidate since it has some vendor drivers as well | 17:38 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: i may try to rebase on that patch... | 17:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | okay back to the email which enikanorov_ sent, essentially it proposes keeping the existing service provider framework for the backend | 17:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ok sure | 17:39 |
| enikanorov_ | on STF: yes, but not expose it to API | 17:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: yes | 17:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so any thoughts from the folks here on the provider part? | 17:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in case you got a chance to read through what enikanorov_ is proposing | 17:40 |
| enikanorov_ | i'm also concerned about the flavor format | 17:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: sure, had some discussions on that | 17:41 |
| enikanorov_ | right now it is a list of k,v pairs | 17:41 |
| enikanorov_ | which is not exactly tags | 17:41 |
| enikanorov_ | but i think that may simplify builind UI around that | 17:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i think k,v is good | 17:41 |
| enikanorov_ | raw tags might be confusing | 17:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: but there are at least three sets of these k,v | 17:42 |
| hemanthravi | enikanorov_: tags would be known k? | 17:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: those that are common to the neutron services’ framework | 17:42 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: why three sets? | 17:42 |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 17:42 | |
| *** Swami has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:42 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: (2) those that are common to a service type | 17:42 |
| enikanorov_ | hemanthravi: not necessarily | 17:42 |
| enikanorov_ | i think the part of the solution is vendor drivers exporting those pairs to the plugin | 17:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: and (3) those that differentiate between different service instances of the same service type | 17:43 |
| enikanorov_ | ah, i see | 17:43 |
| enikanorov_ | yes, seems so | 17:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i would think that the vendor specific would fall into the third category | 17:43 |
| *** jsoares has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:44 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: your earlier point about raw tags, i believe, is in the context of the lack of this classification | 17:44 |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:44 | |
| enikanorov_ | right | 17:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: for keys, defined in sets 1 and 2, there would be more semantics attached (they would be well defined) hence people would know how to use them | 17:44 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:45 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | that said, finding a common set for (1) and (2) can be a challenging exercise :-) | 17:45 |
| enikanorov_ | well, it seems to be a problem of setting the defaults | 17:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: sure | 17:46 |
| enikanorov_ | i mean that flavors themselves are created by cloud operator | 17:46 |
| enikanorov_ | so user mostly unaffected | 17:46 |
| enikanorov_ | and then we can add types of tags as we go | 17:46 |
| enikanorov_ | i mean add hardcoded types | 17:46 |
| enikanorov_ | which fall into (1) | 17:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ok | 17:46 |
| enikanorov_ | *(1) and (2) | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | other folks have thoughts on the tags (or k,v as we are referring to them here)? | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | they will essentially define the flavor | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *flavor choice | 17:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: so as a next step you said you wanted to take a crack at implementing this on fwaas? | 17:48 |
| enikanorov_ | so... i'll had to push this design on gerrit then :) | 17:48 |
| enikanorov_ | yes, I can try, on top of STF for fwaas | 17:49 |
| Kanzhe | enikanorov_: SumitNaiksatam Is there a first set of k,v pairs for 1 and 2? | 17:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ok great | 17:49 |
| hemanthravi | the k,v are also defined by the cloud operator when creating the flavors | 17:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hemanthravi: yes, the point is that there has to be a base set for which there is common understanding across the project | 17:50 |
| enikanorov_ | one important part of the whole solution is the scheduling part | 17:50 |
| enikanorov_ | i hope everyone gets it right | 17:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: perhaps once enikanorov_ put this bp in gerrit we can comment on what the base set would include | 17:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: please go ahead | 17:50 |
| enikanorov_ | so on scheduling: it's a two step process | 17:51 |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: is the scheduling part done by individual services? | 17:51 |
| enikanorov_ | first step matches flavor to a capabilities of the vendor driver | 17:51 |
| enikanorov_ | s3wong: yes | 17:51 |
| enikanorov_ | second step is internal, driver does that. it maps flavor to the capabilities of appliances that it manages | 17:51 |
| enikanorov_ | it can happen that driver doesn't manage appliances, then step #2 is skipped | 17:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: i believe first step is done in the service plugin? | 17:52 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: yes. | 17:52 |
| enikanorov_ | the result of step #1 is ProviderResourceMapping entry created for the resource | 17:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ok | 17:52 |
| enikanorov_ | the result of step #2 is ApplianceResourceMappign entry | 17:53 |
| s3wong | enikanorov_: so vendors have to expose a set of capabilities? Or is it more like ML2 where each driver would come back and tell if it has all the capabilities? | 17:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: can that entry be updated if the resource has to be moved somewhere else? | 17:53 |
| enikanorov_ | s3wong: yes | 17:53 |
| *** overlayer_ has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: you mean user requests another capabilities? | 17:53 |
| enikanorov_ | s3wong: first option. | 17:54 |
| enikanorov_ | SumitNaiksatam: in that case resource can be rescheduled | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: no user interaction involved, just that the operator might want to move things around/optimize | 17:54 |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:54 | |
| *** amrith is now known as notamrcn | 17:54 | |
| enikanorov_ | yes, it can be updated, both entries | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: ok good | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: did you have any particular keys/tags in mind? | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we had defined a bunch of them when the initial discussion on STF was going on, and I had put it on the wiki | 17:55 |
| enikanorov_ | yeah, that would be good if you guys could help me to gather initial set of tags | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | having trouble finding it now, would have to look into the history | 17:56 |
| *** markmcclain1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:56 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | okay, any more questions for enikanorov_ today? | 17:56 |
| *** d0ugal has quit IRC | 17:56 | |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: serviceContext may need a pair to derive insertion type. I will wait for enikanorov_ to put the initial draft. | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: ok | 17:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov_: thanks, we will look forward to your bp in gerrit | 17:57 |
| enikanorov_ | ok | 17:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Port Chaining Proposal | 17:57 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Port Chaining Proposal (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:57 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Bk1e8-diE1VnzlbM8l479Mjx2vKliqdqC_3l5S56ITU/edit | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: there? | 17:58 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: sure | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | great | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so there were a couple of excahnges on this over the mailer as well | 17:58 |
| cgoncalves | so monday we added an initial proposal for the API and data models | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: nice job capturing the details in teh document | 17:58 |
| cgoncalves | we also brainstormed other data models but that's the one up for discussion now | 17:59 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: thanks | 17:59 |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 17:59 | |
| *** notamrcn is now known as amrith | 17:59 | |
| cgoncalves | does anyone have questions regarding the proposal? | 17:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in general my thinking is that, this is more along the lines of expressing intent for traffic steering | 17:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | between ports that is | 17:59 |
| *** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:00 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | this probably could be a south side abstraction that the broader service chaining framework can use | 18:00 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: it is but as I said on an email yesterday in reply to Kanzhe it can also be extended to traffic steering other than ports by extending the scope of the service function endpoint (SFE) | 18:00 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: yup | 18:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | that said, the validation of a “port chain” is kind of a tricky issue | 18:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i mean the validation for whether the traffic can indeed be steered betweek the given set of ports | 18:02 |
| Kanzhe | cgoncalves: Is SFE meant for services that don't have neutron ports? | 18:02 |
| cgoncalves | for an initial implementation we should focus only on steering traffic between ports, so L1 | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | also, to express this port chaining, you would already need the ports to exist, right? | 18:02 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 18:03 | |
| jsoares | SumitNaiksatam: the proposal is in fact expressing intent for traffic steering but I guess it is a bit more than that since it gives and e2e perpesctive (path along several ports) | 18:03 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:03 | |
| jsoares | SumitNaiksatam: which makes it closer to a SFC abstraction | 18:03 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: yes, you would beed the ports to already exist | 18:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jsoares: sure, but i am not sure that the port level abstraction is the best way to capture the e2e path | 18:04 |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 18:04 | |
| cgoncalves | Kanzhe: my opinion is that for an initial implementation we should only focus on neutron ports | 18:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: so that might be a bit of a problem with existing services in neutron | 18:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jsoares: agreed, but services in neutron are not only services in VMs | 18:05 |
| cgoncalves | Kanzhe: but it could later be extended to have a 'type' attribute where it could be extend to L2 or L3 steering rather than only L1 steering (ports) | 18:05 |
| s3wong | cgoncalves: interesting. endpoints are identified by ports, chain is associated with flow, then a flow has a list of classifiers. The list of endpoints is ordered? | 18:06 |
| jsoares | SumitNaiksatam: yes, but that is also why a SFC is not directly associated to neutron ports, but is associated to SF Endpoints. a SF Endpoint could be associated to something else rather than a neutron port | 18:06 |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 18:07 | |
| cgoncalves | s3wong: the list of endpoints was previously an ordered list, but it's not required as we discussed internally, so that requirement has been dropped | 18:07 |
| Kanzhe | cgoncalves: I think the current Neutron ports are all L3 ports, with mac and IP. | 18:08 |
| s3wong | cgoncalves: then how is the order of traffic flow through the chain be configured? | 18:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jsoares: ok, in which case its probably similar to the existing proposal around service chains | 18:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jsoares: my understanding, where this proposal complements the existing discussion, is to be able to signal intent for the traffic sterring between a set of neutron ports | 18:09 |
| jsoares | s3wong: the endpoints don't actually have to be ordered because the traffic steering would be done at each pair of ports (i.e. the same forwarding rule would be applied to all hops in the chain) | 18:09 |
| cgoncalves | Kanzhe: that said, you're saying we could not steer traffic based on ports but just mac and IP? | 18:10 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jsoares cgoncalves: i am with s3wong here, i would have expected this to be an ordered list | 18:10 |
| banix | the order seem to be implicit | 18:10 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: based on the flow? | 18:11 |
| banix | yes if i understand it correctly | 18:11 |
| jsoares | SumitNaiksatam s3wong: maybe we can further clarify this aspect in the proposal. We believe it can be an order list but it does not need to be. | 18:11 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jsoares: sure | 18:11 |
| cgoncalves | s3wong, SumitNaiksatam: ok, so yesterday we came up with this new list of endpoints structure. instead of being a list of endpoints it should be a list of list of {K,V}+PassiveEndpoints | 18:11 |
| s3wong | jsoares: sure | 18:12 |
| Kanzhe | cgoncalves: that was my question: is neutron port the right abstraction for traffic steering. Maybe it is, then it needs to be extended. Maybe not. | 18:12 |
| cgoncalves | an example of a passive endpoint is the one in use case #4 (MON_01) | 18:12 |
| s3wong | cgoncalves: passive endpoint? | 18:12 |
| cgoncalves | s3wong: network taps :) | 18:13 |
| jsoares | Kanzhe: I think I see your point. E.g. if you have a function that does not have an IP in its interface, the neutron port would say it had...is that it? | 18:13 |
| *** Swami has quit IRC | 18:14 | |
| cgoncalves | Kanzhe: I'm not 100% sure, but in principle it should be doable? :) | 18:14 |
| jsoares | s3wong: the notion of "passive" or "active" relates if the enpoint is in fact part of the main course of the chain or not. A passive function can be a function that has a promiscuous interface and is just looking into packets and does nothing (e.g. DPI) | 18:15 |
| cgoncalves | ^ what jsoares said | 18:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok perhaps, jsoares and cgoncalves are planning some more updates to their document | 18:15 |
| jsoares | s3wong: Use case #4 has cgoncalves pointed out | 18:15 |
| Kanzhe | jsoares: kind of. If a service is a L1 device. Currently, the device is invisible to Neutron since create_port can't be called for such device's interface. | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in general i am thinking of this as neutron port-chain abstraction | 18:16 |
| s3wong | jsoares: OK. Thanks | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and can be leveraged (at times) by the broader service chaining framework | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in interest of time lets move to the next topic | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves jsoares: thanks! | 18:17 |
| jsoares | Kanzhe: Ah, yes, agree! | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Service context with Service Interfaces | 18:17 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Service context with Service Interfaces (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 18:17 | |
| cgoncalves | yw | 18:17 |
| jsoares | yw | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so Kanzhe had some more thoughts on our definition of the service_context based on the review comments in the patch: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/62599 | 18:18 |
| Kanzhe | jsoares: cgoncalves I am facing the same issue for service insertion. Neutron port belongs to a Neutron network. It doesn't make much sense to use Neutron port for L1 interface. | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | here’s kanzhe’s document: #link #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AlEockwk0Ir267U9uFDc-Q6vYsWiAcAoKtCJM0Jc5UI/edit | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: you want to summarize? | 18:18 |
| prasadv_ | Kanzhe: can elaborate on not using neutron port for L1? | 18:19 |
| Kanzhe | Since L1 device doesn't belong to any network. It probably makes more sense to define another abstraction for such purpose. | 18:20 |
| cgoncalves | Kanzhe: we can move this discussion to the mailing list or schedule some time in #openstack-neutron | 18:20 |
| s3wong | Kanzhe: L1 is transparent insertion, bump-in-the-wire? | 18:21 |
| Kanzhe | prasadv_: L1 is a invisible to L2 or L3 entities. | 18:21 |
| prasadv_ | s3wong: L1 is bridged insertion | 18:21 |
| Kanzhe | s3wong: yes. | 18:21 |
| prasadv_ | Kanzhe: it is bridged insertion right? | 18:22 |
| *** jsoares_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:22 | |
| hemanthravi | kanzhe: the ip/mac are redundant but a neutron port would be functional for L1 | 18:23 |
| Kanzhe | Thanks, SumitNaiksatam. In the writeup shared by Sumit, I added a new object, serviceInterface. It captures L3, L2, and L1 interfaces. It could also be used for traffic steering. | 18:23 |
| Kanzhe | prasadv_: yes. | 18:23 |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:23 | |
| prasadv_ | shouldnt we separate interfaces from insertion? | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prasadv_: i believe the thinking is that the service interfaces are required for service insertion | 18:24 |
| Kanzhe | prasadv_: why? | 18:24 |
| prasadv_ | what I mean is a service has ports associated with a service | 18:24 |
| Kanzhe | hemanthravi: how? | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prasadv_: hence specify what those interface types are, and accordingly the service can be inserted | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prasadv_: the interfaces plug into the ports | 18:25 |
| hemanthravi | kanzhe: the L1 service doesn't use these | 18:25 |
| prasadv_ | and then how the service is inserted determines how traffic flows between the ports of the service | 18:25 |
| prasadv_ | and also the type of service | 18:25 |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 18:26 | |
| prasadv_ | L3 routes between the ports right? | 18:26 |
| prasadv_ | L1 bridges the traffic between the ports | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: i think the point where we are tripping over is, will an L1 interface have a correspoding “neutron” port manifestation? | 18:26 |
| Kanzhe | prasadv_: service insertion is different from traffic flow, which is traffic steering. | 18:26 |
| s3wong | prasadv_: are you advocating just using ports? | 18:27 |
| prasadv_ | Kanzhe: but the type of service being inserted determines the flow doesnt it? | 18:28 |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 18:28 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | okay i think we need to spend a little more time on Kanzhe’s document, and perhaps some more higher bandhwidth discussions | 18:28 |
| s3wong | [2 minutes] | 18:28 |
| *** shivharis has quit IRC | 18:28 | |
| prasadv_ | s3wong: Not sure. Need to think | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: yes! :-) | 18:29 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: Yes, we can either extend the Neutron port to support L1, L2 interfaces, or a separate object. I haven't wrapped my head around on which one makes more sense. | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: ok | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: thanks | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Open Discussion | 18:29 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open Discussion (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 18:29 | |
| cgoncalves | Kanzhe: yup, that would be then the main issue here to sort out | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so we havent yet reached out to the Neutron PTL regarding us getting a standing item on the neutron IRC | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but i believe enikanorov_, nachi, and i are on the same page on this | 18:30 |
| jsoares_ | Kanzhe, SumitNaiksatam: that was in fact something that we also thought about, neutron port to also reflect L1 aspects | 18:30 |
| cgoncalves | 1 hour is proving to be short to discuss all topics. should we arrange another meeting for chaining? | 18:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: we have had several in the past :-) | 18:30 |
| cgoncalves | I mean, as it is still an early topic of discussion | 18:30 |
| s3wong | we could just always eat into FWaaS's time :-) | 18:30 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: off adv-services meetings? | 18:30 |
| Kanzhe | prasadv_: No. I disagree. Insertion type is independent of what flows is steered to the service interface. | 18:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: service chaining has a long history of discussion :-) | 18:31 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: and yet we are still discussing it hehe :) | 18:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so i think in terms of priority, getting the flavors work done by enikanorov_ is clearly a prirority from an advanced services common requirements perspective | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i also think the service insertion part need to be sorted out | 18:32 |
| Kanzhe | SumitNaiksatam: and service insertion. :-) | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | Kanzhe: yeah, right on cue! :-) | 18:32 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: agreed | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i believe there are aspects related to certificate management that swami had brought up earlier | 18:32 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: some sort of Neutron representation of "service" is also needed for GBP | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: very much agree | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: in fact that is a precursor to the service insertion | 18:33 |
| prasadv_ | Kanzhe: I agree what traafic flows from outside is independent of service insertion | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so good, lets collect the list of items that we need to prioritize and present to the broader neutron community/core team | 18:34 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: and a timeframe maybe? | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we have also proposed a design summit session for this | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: absolutely | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am not sure if we will get a slot | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but please, reach out to me or on the mailer as to what items are in your critical path from an advanced services common requirements perspective | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and we can accordingly prioritize and get reviewer attention for thise | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | those | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | note that we first have to get the blueprints reviewed now! | 18:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | alright, anything more today? | 18:35 |
| *** pcm__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:36 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | dont want to make a habit of going over the time every week! | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | okay thanks everyone for joining, lets keep plugging at this | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #endmeeting | 18:36 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 18:36 | |
| banix | thanks. | 18:36 |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Apr 16 18:36:59 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:37 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-04-16-17.34.html | 18:37 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-04-16-17.34.txt | 18:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bye all! | 18:37 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-04-16-17.34.log.html | 18:37 |
| *** jamie_h has quit IRC | 18:37 | |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 18:37 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:38 | |
| *** hemanthravi has quit IRC | 18:38 | |
| *** s3wong has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:38 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:42 | |
| *** sweston has quit IRC | 18:43 | |
| *** rand738 has quit IRC | 18:49 | |
| *** pcm__ has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:50 | |
| *** rand738 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:51 | |
| *** jsoares_ has quit IRC | 18:51 | |
| *** jsoares has quit IRC | 18:51 | |
| *** russellb has quit IRC | 18:53 | |
| *** Kanzhe has quit IRC | 18:54 | |
| *** prasadv_ has quit IRC | 18:54 | |
| *** russellb has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:55 | |
| *** rkukura has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:04 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 19:21 | |
| *** yamahata_ has quit IRC | 19:21 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:22 | |
| *** sweston has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:43 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 19:48 | |
| *** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:50 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 19:53 | |
| *** alexpilotti has quit IRC | 20:05 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:08 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:10 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 20:15 | |
| *** david-lyle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:16 | |
| *** jomara has quit IRC | 20:19 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:19 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:20 | |
| *** jomara has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:20 | |
| *** _sweston_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:21 | |
| *** sweston has quit IRC | 20:21 | |
| *** jomara has quit IRC | 20:44 | |
| *** jomara has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:45 | |
| *** eguz has quit IRC | 20:49 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:50 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:51 | |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| *** _sweston_ has quit IRC | 21:08 | |
| *** sweston has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:10 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 21:11 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:11 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 21:15 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:24 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:24 | |
| *** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:27 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 21:27 | |
| *** sarob_ has quit IRC | 21:28 | |
| *** sarob_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:29 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 21:29 | |
| *** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:29 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:31 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 21:32 | |
| *** sarob_ has quit IRC | 21:33 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 21:34 | |
| *** _sweston_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:35 | |
| *** sweston has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 21:38 | |
| *** peristeri has quit IRC | 21:43 | |
| *** dstanek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:54 | |
| *** dstanek has quit IRC | 21:59 | |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 22:08 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:13 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 22:23 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 22:27 | |
| *** MaxV_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:27 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 22:30 | |
| *** MaxV_ has quit IRC | 22:32 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 22:34 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:35 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 22:36 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 22:39 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:01 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** david-lyle has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:01 | |
| *** jpomero has quit IRC | 23:18 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:52 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 23:59 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!