| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 00:01 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:02 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 00:08 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:08 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:13 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 00:13 | |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 00:14 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:14 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 00:19 | |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 00:20 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 00:21 | |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 00:25 | |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 00:26 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 00:28 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 00:41 | |
| *** TravT has quit IRC | 00:46 | |
| *** clu_ has quit IRC | 01:04 | |
| *** chuckC has quit IRC | 01:17 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:26 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 01:28 | |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 01:37 | |
| *** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:38 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 01:42 | |
| *** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away | 02:00 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 02:11 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:19 | |
| *** coolsvap|afk is now known as coolsvap | 02:25 | |
| *** dlenrow has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:25 | |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:28 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:38 | |
| *** emagana has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:49 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:52 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:54 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 02:57 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 03:11 | |
| *** enykeev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:20 | |
| *** nelsnelson has quit IRC | 03:21 | |
| *** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan | 03:25 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:33 | |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 03:34 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has quit IRC | 03:39 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:40 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has quit IRC | 03:44 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:47 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 03:47 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:48 | |
| *** jrist has quit IRC | 03:49 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 03:51 | |
| *** vkmc has quit IRC | 03:59 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 04:00 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:02 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 04:04 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:05 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 04:11 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:12 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:12 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 04:14 | |
| *** jgrimm has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:19 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:23 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 04:28 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:28 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 04:33 | |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 04:38 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 04:39 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:40 | |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 04:40 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:47 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 04:51 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 05:04 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:05 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 05:10 | |
| *** emagana has quit IRC | 05:12 | |
| *** tmazur has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:12 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:29 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 05:33 | |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 05:34 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 05:46 | |
| *** wendar has quit IRC | 06:04 | |
| *** wendar_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:04 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 06:19 | |
| *** jpomero has quit IRC | 06:19 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:23 | |
| *** jpomero has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:23 | |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 06:29 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:29 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 06:34 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:36 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:37 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:42 | |
| *** lsmola has quit IRC | 06:49 | |
| *** lsmola has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:51 | |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 06:55 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 07:00 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:00 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has quit IRC | 07:01 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:01 | |
| *** eguz has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:08 | |
| *** eguz has quit IRC | 07:11 | |
| *** lsmola has quit IRC | 07:11 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 07:12 | |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 07:12 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:13 | |
| *** lsmola has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:15 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has quit IRC | 07:17 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:18 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 07:19 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:19 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has quit IRC | 07:22 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:29 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 07:37 | |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:50 | |
| *** jamiehannaford has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 07:50 | |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 07:55 | |
| *** coolsvap is now known as coolsvap|afk | 07:55 | |
| *** adi__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:00 | |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:00 | |
| *** tomoe__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:00 | |
| *** yamamoto_ has quit IRC | 08:01 | |
| *** safchain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:02 | |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 08:04 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:04 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:04 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 08:05 | |
| *** tomoe__ has quit IRC | 08:05 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:05 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 08:09 | |
| *** lsmola has quit IRC | 08:09 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 08:14 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:29 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 08:32 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 08:59 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 09:01 | |
| *** ttrifonov_zZzz is now known as ttrifonov | 09:02 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:05 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 09:09 | |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 09:13 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has quit IRC | 09:35 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:35 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:36 | |
| *** sunrenjie6 has quit IRC | 09:39 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 09:40 | |
| *** igordcard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:41 | |
| *** sankarshan is now known as sankarshan_away | 09:43 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 09:51 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 09:59 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:04 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:07 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 10:11 | |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 10:14 | |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 10:16 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 10:27 | |
| *** yamahata_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:31 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 10:37 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:37 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 10:42 | |
| *** jcoufal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:43 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 10:56 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 10:59 | |
| *** flaviof_zzz is now known as flaviof | 11:02 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 11:05 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:08 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 11:13 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:27 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 11:32 | |
| *** d0ugal has quit IRC | 11:33 | |
| *** d0ugal has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:34 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:39 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 11:44 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 11:50 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 11:50 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 12:01 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:02 | |
| *** nacim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:03 | |
| *** sankarshan_away is now known as sankarshan | 12:10 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 12:10 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:10 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:11 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:13 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 12:14 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:21 | |
| *** glenc has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:23 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 12:24 | |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 12:27 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:34 | |
| *** lblanchard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:38 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:40 | |
| *** peristeri has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:48 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 12:50 | |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:51 | |
| *** mfer has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 12:58 | |
| *** tmazur has quit IRC | 12:58 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:00 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 13:07 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:07 | |
| *** flaviof is now known as flaviof_zzz | 13:08 | |
| *** _crobertsrh is now known as crobertsrh | 13:12 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:12 | |
| *** kashyap` has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:13 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 13:16 | |
| *** kashyap has quit IRC | 13:17 | |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:19 | |
| *** kashyap`` has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:20 | |
| *** tmazur has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:21 | |
| *** kashyap` has quit IRC | 13:22 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:28 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 13:32 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:32 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:32 | |
| *** jrist has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:35 | |
| *** kashyap`` is now known as kashyap | 13:36 | |
| *** jacalcat has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:39 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:40 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 13:44 | |
| *** tqtran has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:46 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:47 | |
| *** jmsoares has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 13:49 | |
| *** tqtran has quit IRC | 13:52 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 13:55 | |
| *** adi__ has quit IRC | 13:55 | |
| *** pballand has quit IRC | 13:59 | |
| *** sdague has quit IRC | 14:02 | |
| *** tmazur has quit IRC | 14:03 | |
| *** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:04 | |
| *** sdague has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:08 | |
| *** nelsnelson has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:10 | |
| *** yamamoto has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:13 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:14 | |
| *** krotscheck has quit IRC | 14:16 | |
| *** adi__ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:16 | |
| *** jacalcat has quit IRC | 14:16 | |
| *** mestery has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:16 | |
| *** markmcclain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:18 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 14:18 | |
| *** stratuspaulg has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:20 | |
| *** krotscheck has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:22 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 14:25 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:26 | |
| *** jackib has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:29 | |
| *** Hrishi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:29 | |
| jcoufal | !startmeeting UX | 14:30 |
|---|---|---|
| openstack | jcoufal: Error: "startmeeting" is not a valid command. | 14:30 |
| jcoufal | ah | 14:30 |
| jcoufal | #startmeeting UX | 14:30 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Jun 18 14:30:30 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is jcoufal. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 14:30 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 14:30 |
| adi__ | hello all | 14:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: UX)" | 14:30 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'ux' | 14:30 |
| jcoufal | hi all | 14:30 |
| lblanchard | hi all! | 14:31 |
| adi__ | hi liz, jarda and others | 14:31 |
| jcoufal | I hope there is more of us | 14:32 |
| Hrishi | Hi | 14:32 |
| jackib | hi everyone | 14:32 |
| jcoufal | I hope it's not the alternating time what prevents people from attending the meeting | 14:33 |
| jackib | I did find it a little confusing :) | 14:33 |
| jackib | since you have to count the wednesdays past the monday. but that could just be me | 14:34 |
| adi__ | jarda, we could start? | 14:34 |
| jcoufal | if that would be problematic I think we should stick to Mondays only then | 14:35 |
| jcoufal | let's start | 14:35 |
| lblanchard | yeah…I was thinking it might get confusing if we have to skip a week to technically do 1st monday of the month…oh well! | 14:35 |
| adi__ | yes | 14:35 |
| jcoufal | #topic StoryBoard for UX | 14:35 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "StoryBoard for UX (Meeting topic: UX)" | 14:35 | |
| jcoufal | so I discussed with krotscheck and jblair | 14:36 |
| adi__ | okay | 14:36 |
| jcoufal | it looks there are some issues to add a project into the StoryBoard which does not have a git repo | 14:36 |
| jcoufal | and as long as we don't need one it doesn't make big sense to create one just for this purpose | 14:36 |
| jcoufal | (infra team doesn't like it) | 14:36 |
| adi__ | so we continue with launchpad ? | 14:37 |
| jcoufal | so there needs to go a patch to jeepyb which should allow us to do that | 14:37 |
| jcoufal | so at the moment I suggest to stick with launchpad | 14:37 |
| jcoufal | and we will move to storyboard once it is ready | 14:38 |
| jackib | but there will be a future fix in storyboard? | 14:38 |
| jackib | cool | 14:38 |
| jcoufal | jackib: it should | 14:38 |
| jcoufal | it will just take a bit longer then few days | 14:38 |
| jcoufal | s/then/than | 14:38 |
| krotscheck | Infra likes the idea of having UX in storyboard. They just don’t like having unused git repositories lying around. | 14:38 |
| *** rm_work|away is now known as rm_work | 14:38 | |
| jcoufal | yeah, that's the biggest concern | 14:38 |
| jcoufal | also naming of openstack-ux, but that's a minor issue | 14:39 |
| krotscheck | So if you guys are content with keeping the status quo, then Launchpad is fine. This is OpenStack though, nothing will get done unless someone cares enough to do it themselves. | 14:39 |
| jcoufal | krotscheck: I believe we really would like to jump to StoryBoard | 14:40 |
| lblanchard | krotscheck: yes, I'm not content with LaunchPad :) | 14:40 |
| jcoufal | I will keep track on it and talk to you krotscheck so that we can clarify all concerns | 14:40 |
| krotscheck | I have no concerns - I just don’t know python well enough to do this for you guys. | 14:41 |
| jcoufal | krotscheck: ah, I see, I will try to find someone who could help | 14:41 |
| krotscheck | I’m sure there’s SOMEONE in this meeting willing to do it? | 14:41 |
| krotscheck | https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack-infra/jeepyb/tree/jeepyb | 14:41 |
| * lblanchard has zero python knowledge… | 14:42 | |
| jcoufal | no volunteers yet :-/ but we will sort it out | 14:42 |
| lblanchard | but maybe someone from the Horizon team could help us out? | 14:42 |
| adi__ | haha | 14:42 |
| jcoufal | #topic Wireframes review tool and its progress | 14:43 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Wireframes review tool and its progress (Meeting topic: UX)" | 14:43 | |
| jcoufal | adi__: this is your time :) | 14:43 |
| adi__ | yes | 14:43 |
| adi__ | https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/uxtools | 14:43 |
| adi__ | i am currently in the process of reviewing them - have seen 2 so far | 14:44 |
| adi__ | Concept.ly & Notism | 14:44 |
| jackib | not invision? | 14:44 |
| adi__ | i've seen invision already, just haven't put it on the list yet | 14:45 |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:45 | |
| adi__ | concept is free and in beta at this stage | 14:45 |
| adi__ | quite useful. the only downside is that it does not support uploading of PDFs | 14:45 |
| adi__ | there is no limit on uploading files for concept | 14:46 |
| lblanchard | adi__: Does concept have plans to support PDF? Any idea? | 14:46 |
| adi__ | i would encourage you to look at these 2 for now and provide feedback | 14:46 |
| jackib | yea, PDF is pretty important | 14:46 |
| adi__ | i'm afraid i can't answer that right now as nowhere on the website it is mentioned | 14:47 |
| lblanchard | I'll definitely check these out and add my feedback to this etherpad | 14:47 |
| adi__ | notism supports all the formats | 14:47 |
| adi__ | and is very much like invision | 14:47 |
| adi__ | the notism free tier provides 1 GB of upload | 14:47 |
| adi__ | no. of collaborators / reviewers not mentioned | 14:48 |
| adi__ | didnt find any opensource tool | 14:48 |
| jcoufal | adi__: 1 GB storage in total? | 14:48 |
| adi__ | for collaboration / review | 14:48 |
| adi__ | yes, 1 gb for the free tier | 14:49 |
| *** zehicle has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:49 | |
| adi__ | shouldn't it be enough? | 14:49 |
| jackib | That won't go far | 14:49 |
| jcoufal | for some time, yes | 14:49 |
| jcoufal | but longer term... | 14:49 |
| jackib | is it per month? or ever? | 14:49 |
| adi__ | forever i guess :) | 14:50 |
| *** flaviof_zzz is now known as flaviof | 14:50 | |
| adi__ | yes, 1 gb for ever | 14:50 |
| jcoufal | adi__: have you guys found any tool which we can host by ourselves? | 14:50 |
| lblanchard | yeah…considering we will be posting just images it will last a bit…but will fill up eventually | 14:50 |
| adi__ | found one called layerVault | 14:50 |
| jackib | ah layervault is nice | 14:51 |
| jackib | but self-hosting is enterprise version | 14:51 |
| adi__ | yes | 14:52 |
| jackib | so probably expensive | 14:52 |
| adi__ | rest of the ones are pretty much paid apps | 14:52 |
| jcoufal | yeah, we don't wanna go this way | 14:53 |
| adi__ | if storage isnt a huge issue, i would recomemnd concept and notism | 14:53 |
| jcoufal | alright | 14:53 |
| adi__ | i guess you should take a look and update the etherpad | 14:53 |
| adi__ | in the next meeting we could finalize the tool to be used | 14:53 |
| jcoufal | awesome | 14:54 |
| jcoufal | do you need any help with this adi__ ? | 14:54 |
| jackib | welllll…. | 14:54 |
| adi__ | not really, i'm okay | 14:54 |
| jackib | I suggest before finalizing we do some test runs. You always run into unexpected bumps with tools like thiat | 14:54 |
| jackib | this | 14:54 |
| adi__ | yes, hence we should all take a shot at them | 14:55 |
| adi__ | may be share a few screens and see the effectiveness | 14:55 |
| lblanchard | adi__: _1 | 14:55 |
| lblanchard | +1 | 14:55 |
| lblanchard | haha | 14:55 |
| jackib | sounds good! | 14:56 |
| jcoufal | jackib: +1 | 14:56 |
| adi__ | alright, cool | 14:56 |
| jcoufal | adi__: +1 | 14:56 |
| jcoufal | great | 14:56 |
| jcoufal | good job so far adi__ | 14:56 |
| jcoufal | #topic Cross-project UI library | 14:56 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Cross-project UI library (Meeting topic: UX)" | 14:56 | |
| adi__ | thx, will keep on updating the etherpad | 14:56 |
| jcoufal | so, this is mixed effort from multiple projects | 14:57 |
| jcoufal | [UX] [Heat] [Mistral] [Murano] [Neutron] [Solum] | 14:57 |
| jcoufal | in particular | 14:57 |
| adi__ | okay | 14:57 |
| jcoufal | at the moment there is requirements gathering | 14:57 |
| adi__ | jarda, is this similar to what i've been talking about, for heat? | 14:57 |
| jcoufal | adi__: I guess a bit different, but somewhat related | 14:58 |
| adi__ | okay | 14:58 |
| jcoufal | here is the ongoing conversation: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/037054.html | 14:58 |
| jcoufal | and the etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/9XQ7Q2NQdv | 14:59 |
| *** jackib1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 14:59 | |
| jcoufal | also related gdoc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19Q9JwoO77724RyOp7XkpYmALwmdb7JjoQHcDv4ffZ-I/edit# | 14:59 |
| jcoufal | these guys asked for UX help which is great | 14:59 |
| jcoufal | anybody interested in helping there? | 15:00 |
| adi__ | yes | 15:00 |
| *** jackib has quit IRC | 15:00 | |
| jcoufal | I was a bit involved earlier | 15:00 |
| jcoufal | but not heavily | 15:00 |
| adi__ | okay, for which project? | 15:00 |
| jcoufal | adi__: what do you mean? | 15:01 |
| lblanchard | I think a good step would be (if anyone has time/interest) to give feedback on the Google doc…https://docs.google.com/document/d/19Q9JwoO77724RyOp7XkpYmALwmdb7JjoQHcDv4ffZ-I/edit# | 15:01 |
| adi__ | i meant, which service did you work on, heat, murano? | 15:01 |
| jcoufal | adi__: I meant I was involved a bit in this discussion and the library effort | 15:02 |
| adi__ | but that does not matter. i would be willing to look at heat in particular, given i already have some ideas there | 15:02 |
| jcoufal | not directly in one or another project | 15:02 |
| jcoufal | so whoever is interested in helping here | 15:02 |
| jcoufal | I think lblanchard had a good point - let's start with contributing to the gdoc | 15:03 |
| adi__ | okay | 15:03 |
| lblanchard | any volunteers? | 15:05 |
| jackib1 | I got an error when I clicked on this doc. anyone else? | 15:05 |
| lblanchard | :) | 15:05 |
| *** TravT has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:05 | |
| lblanchard | jackib1: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19Q9JwoO77724RyOp7XkpYmALwmdb7JjoQHcDv4ffZ-I/edit# | 15:05 |
| adi__ | how about i take a look and get back later? | 15:05 |
| lblanchard | jackib1: try that link…the one I sent earlier got munged | 15:05 |
| jackib1 | yep thanks! | 15:05 |
| jackib1 | OK, I have another meeting. I'll catch up on the rest of the meeting later | 15:06 |
| adi__ | bye | 15:06 |
| jcoufal | bye bye jackib1 | 15:06 |
| lblanchard | thanks jackib1! | 15:06 |
| jcoufal | adi__: sure, give it a shot when you can | 15:07 |
| jcoufal | alright, let's move on | 15:08 |
| jcoufal | #topic Faceted Search | 15:08 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Faceted Search (Meeting topic: UX)" | 15:08 | |
| jcoufal | who suggested this topic? | 15:08 |
| lblanchard | ah that was me :) | 15:09 |
| lblanchard | similar to the last topic... | 15:09 |
| lblanchard | there is an effort going on around faceted search that I think we could help with by giving some feedback | 15:09 |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:10 | |
| lblanchard | maybe with respect to requirements to begin (what we would see being helpful in the UI for search) | 15:10 |
| jcoufal | lblanchard: is it alive? | 15:10 |
| jcoufal | I mean the effort | 15:10 |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: I saw some recent activity from travis | 15:10 |
| lblanchard | so it made me wonder if we should jump in at all | 15:10 |
| jcoufal | I just know that this BP (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/horizon/+spec/faceted-search) is around for a very long time | 15:11 |
| jcoufal | there were various inititatives (like elastic search) | 15:11 |
| jcoufal | but they it was turned down | 15:11 |
| jcoufal | I think the biggest blocker are the APIs | 15:11 |
| lblanchard | yeah…sounds like maybe travis has the latest initiative… | 15:12 |
| jcoufal | and the other approach was indexing | 15:12 |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: I wonder if having a few wireframes around searching on a table in Horizon would be good | 15:12 |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: that way we could have a proposal and let folks figure out the technical details, but we've at least thrown in what would be good from a user point of view feature wise... | 15:12 |
| jcoufal | lblanchard: wasn't this intended for searching throughout the whole OpenStack? | 15:12 |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: ah yes, now I remember…Travis is working on Graffiti | 15:13 |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 15:13 | |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: right…we could definitely give feedback for other search requirements | 15:13 |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: and Graffiti is focused on tagging | 15:13 |
| lblanchard | clever name :) | 15:13 |
| jcoufal | nice :) | 15:14 |
| jcoufal | well tagging is important in general | 15:14 |
| jcoufal | so it would be nice to get involved | 15:14 |
| lblanchard | right…I at least wanted to bring it up here incase anyone has done anything yet | 15:14 |
| jcoufal | and express the expactations for the UI | 15:14 |
| lblanchard | and to advertise if anyone is interested | 15:14 |
| lblanchard | exactly | 15:14 |
| jcoufal | I guess as long as we are the only two left here, we should bring it up next time | 15:14 |
| lblanchard | sounds good to leave it on the agenda for next time, thank you | 15:15 |
| jcoufal | I would also suggest to stop alternating and have regular bi-weekly meetings on Monday instead - not to confuse people more :) | 15:15 |
| lblanchard | heh, sounds good to me…doesn't seem like we've gotten any attendance that we didn't have for that first meeting | 15:15 |
| *** pballand has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:16 | |
| jcoufal | I'll write an e-mail to the mailing list and probably we should continue with the regular Monday meetings once in 2 weeks | 15:16 |
| jcoufal | so every second Monday | 15:16 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 15:16 | |
| adi__ | okay | 15:17 |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: it might get a bit tricky | 15:17 |
| jcoufal | starting from July 7th I would say - since that's the scheduled next meeting | 15:17 |
| jcoufal | lblanchard: would it? | 15:17 |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: if we say the 1st and 3rd monday of the month…in certain months we'd skip 2 weeks in a row based on when Monday falls | 15:17 |
| lblanchard | jcoufal: just a small thing about choosing specific mondays in the month | 15:17 |
| jcoufal | nope, I would say each "odd" or "even" week | 15:18 |
| lblanchard | however, if we schedule it for every other monday and have an invite, maybe that would work better? | 15:18 |
| lblanchard | take July for example | 15:18 |
| jcoufal | I completely agree | 15:18 |
| lblanchard | oh okay | 15:18 |
| jcoufal | I didn't want to say 1st and 3rd | 15:18 |
| jcoufal | every other Monday | 15:18 |
| lblanchard | cool | 15:18 |
| lblanchard | we are on the same page then :) | 15:19 |
| lblanchard | sounds good! | 15:19 |
| jcoufal | starting from July 7th | 15:19 |
| jcoufal | so we have 3 weeks off now | 15:19 |
| adi__ | 3 weeks is quite a gap | 15:19 |
| adi__ | i think we should do one after 2 weeks | 15:19 |
| adi__ | any comments? | 15:19 |
| jcoufal | we will have to move the officially scheduled one | 15:20 |
| jcoufal | not that it is big deal | 15:20 |
| jcoufal | I will check in the mailing list | 15:20 |
| lblanchard | sounds good | 15:20 |
| jcoufal | probably June 30th sounds better | 15:20 |
| adi__ | yes | 15:20 |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 15:21 | |
| jcoufal | Keep eyes on the mailing list please | 15:21 |
| lblanchard | yeah, June 30th sounds good | 15:21 |
| lblanchard | will do | 15:21 |
| jcoufal | #topic Open discussion | 15:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Open discussion (Meeting topic: UX)" | 15:21 | |
| jcoufal | we already started but any other issues? | 15:21 |
| jcoufal | lblanchard, adi__? | 15:22 |
| adi__ | im good | 15:22 |
| *** samchoi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:22 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:22 | |
| jcoufal | since you are the two brave ones left :) | 15:22 |
| adi__ | haha | 15:22 |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 15:22 | |
| lblanchard | all set! | 15:22 |
| jcoufal | great | 15:22 |
| jcoufal | thanks a lot for your participation and help | 15:23 |
| jcoufal | #endmeeting | 15:23 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 15:23 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Jun 18 15:23:25 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 15:23 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ux/2014/ux.2014-06-18-14.30.html | 15:23 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ux/2014/ux.2014-06-18-14.30.txt | 15:23 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/ux/2014/ux.2014-06-18-14.30.log.html | 15:23 |
| Hrishi | thanks! | 15:23 |
| jcoufal | oh sorry Hrishi, you were here as well :) | 15:23 |
| Hrishi | No problem :) | 15:24 |
| Hrishi | I'm new & observing, working with Adi | 15:24 |
| adi__ | okay, great guys, see you soon | 15:25 |
| *** adi__ has quit IRC | 15:26 | |
| *** Hrishi has quit IRC | 15:26 | |
| *** thomas_morin has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:26 | |
| lblanchard | thanks all, catch you soon! | 15:26 |
| mfer | #startmeeting openstack-sdk-php | 15:30 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Jun 18 15:30:10 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. Please state your name along with any applicable affiliation. | 15:30 |
| mfer | Matt Farina, HP | 15:30 |
| samchoi | Sam Choi, HP | 15:30 |
| jamiehannaford | Jamie Hannaford, Rackspace | 15:31 |
| samchoi | Shaunak is out right? jamiehannaford | 15:31 |
| jamiehannaford | yes I think so. I think Glen is in a meeting | 15:32 |
| mfer | ok, thanks for the update | 15:32 |
| mfer | #topic Agenda | 15:32 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Agenda (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 15:32 | |
| mfer | 1. Usage of final, private, and protected (mfer) | 15:32 |
| mfer | 2. Reviews in progress - any questions/concerns? (samchoi) | 15:32 |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:32 | |
| mfer | and changes or additions to make? | 15:33 |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:33 | |
| samchoi | no, this seems good since we have a shortened meeting | 15:33 |
| jamiehannaford | I have nothing to add | 15:33 |
| mfer | #topic Usage of final, private, and protected | 15:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Usage of final, private, and protected (Meeting topic: openstack-sdk-php)" | 15:34 | |
| mfer | #link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-June/036842.html | 15:34 |
| mfer | The link is to the list thread on this topic | 15:34 |
| mfer | jamiehannaford I think we're coming at this from two different styles of writing PHP | 15:35 |
| mfer | two different valid styles used in the PHP community | 15:35 |
| jamiehannaford | I agree they're different approaches, but I don't think they just apply to PHP | 15:37 |
| mfer | jamiehannaford how familiar are you with the style where folks need to override a piece of functionality and extend the class to do so. It's less about the `Cat extends Animal` method and more about the practicalities of getting something done | 15:37 |
| mfer | I say PHP because some languages, like Python, don't have this issue because they don't have Private as an option | 15:37 |
| jamiehannaford | how familiar? I know of it, and think it's wrong | 15:38 |
| jamiehannaford | Python has a strong convention - so doesn't need keywords like private | 15:38 |
| jamiehannaford | they tend to use _ and __ | 15:38 |
| mfer | sure, but if someone wants to they can access those... just at their own risk | 15:38 |
| jamiehannaford | but it's a completely different culture, they see visibility in a completely different way from PHP I think | 15:38 |
| jamiehannaford | I don't think we should allow that risk | 15:38 |
| jamiehannaford | let me ask a question: | 15:39 |
| *** jpich has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:39 | |
| mfer | so, lets go back to the use cases. I'd prefer to solve problems than to get into opinions on style | 15:39 |
| * mfer waits for question | 15:39 | |
| jamiehannaford | do we support public visibility for properties? | 15:39 |
| jamiehannaford | $server->name = 'foo'; | 15:39 |
| jamiehannaford | I mean, do we think it's a good idea | 15:40 |
| jamiehannaford | or do we instead support $server->setName('foo'); | 15:40 |
| jamiehannaford | we choose the latter, don't we? | 15:41 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has quit IRC | 15:42 | |
| mfer | That's up for debate. The reason is important. A class has a behavior described by an interface. The caller should only be concerned with the interface. Whether that's the thing we ship, what someone extended from our stuff (using ours as the basis for theirs), or something else all together that supports the interface. | 15:42 |
| jamiehannaford | completely agree | 15:42 |
| mfer | Are they protected or public.... if they are public than it needs to be clearly docuented | 15:42 |
| jamiehannaford | the interface is the most important thing | 15:42 |
| mfer | enabling developers to be successful is the most important thing | 15:42 |
| jamiehannaford | modifying properties directly is completely undermining an interface | 15:42 |
| *** SumitNaiksatam has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:43 | |
| mfer | we're not building a library... we're enabling developers to access openstack services. i view it differently than if i was creating something like a UUID library | 15:43 |
| mfer | the question is, how do we enable a wide variety of developers who use different conventions to be successful? | 15:43 |
| jamiehannaford | what do you mean by "library"? | 15:43 |
| mfer | the code we include in the SDK to get people going. The library/binding | 15:44 |
| jamiehannaford | I don't understand what you mean - we are building a "library" or "kit" that enables devs to work with openstack APIs | 15:44 |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:45 | |
| mfer | our goal isn't to build the library. the goal is to enable a wide variety of developers to be successful accessing openstack services. we're including a library only as a way to meet that goal | 15:45 |
| mfer | so, we need code that wordpress devs, drupal devs, symfony devs, home grown framework devs, zf devs, and many others can use | 15:46 |
| mfer | and enables them to be successful | 15:46 |
| mfer | rather than having different libraries for different communities | 15:46 |
| jamiehannaford | how does using protected visibility make developers more successful? | 15:46 |
| mfer | like one that feels right for drupalers, one that feels right for symfony folks, etc | 15:46 |
| jamiehannaford | so here's the thing | 15:46 |
| jamiehannaford | today I went into #symfony on irc and asked about this | 15:47 |
| mfer | that's not the protected part. it's the private/final part that changes development habits | 15:47 |
| jamiehannaford | I asked people they're opinion on using private visibility and encourage alternative ways of extension | 15:47 |
| jamiehannaford | nearly everyone I spoke to had very strong ideas that private visibility was right, and the way to go | 15:47 |
| jamiehannaford | I also did this on Stack Overflow | 15:47 |
| jamiehannaford | and I looked at some of the most popular libraries for PHP - all advocate private visibility because it enforces encapsulation | 15:48 |
| mfer | so, i went to Drupal developers (who are a different breed) and asked the same question. And I was universally told not to use private | 15:48 |
| mfer | and I went to developers of some other libraries who said the same thing | 15:48 |
| jamiehannaford | could you share those conversations on the mailing list? I'd like to see the feedback | 15:48 |
| jamiehannaford | I'll post my R&D too | 15:48 |
| mfer | asking a community (sub-culture) of the whole PHP their opinion isn't going to represent PHP devs... jsut that subculture | 15:48 |
| samchoi | jamiehannaford: I've been seeing more mixed responses on sites such as Stack Overflow, especially when the private/protected/public debate came up for other OO languages | 15:48 |
| samchoi | I'm surprised that a public site would heavily lean towards one side exclusively | 15:49 |
| jamiehannaford | samchoi did you see responses from php people? what do other OO languages feel about this? | 15:50 |
| jamiehannaford | I know you have experience with them | 15:50 |
| samchoi | Yea, it was pretty interesting to see the variety of responses :) | 15:50 |
| samchoi | One question, the votes would lean towards protected/public, the next question would lean towards private... | 15:50 |
| mfer | i think it's important to note that the community around symfony doesn't represent PHP as a whole. Far from it. I don't want to go down a stylistic route that inhibits the development of those who take a different path. | 15:51 |
| jamiehannaford | symfony, composer, guzzle, phpspec, behat | 15:51 |
| jamiehannaford | millions of downloads, thousands of stars - I'd say that's a fair representation, no? | 15:51 |
| samchoi | in C++, if I remember correctly, final classes weren't supported by most distributions until as late as 2012. The C++ community is still asking why final classes exist from what I've observed. | 15:52 |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 15:52 | |
| jamiehannaford | hmm, I have no C++ experience, zilch :) | 15:52 |
| jamiehannaford | community involvement is great, but inevitably we should decide based on what *we* believe in | 15:53 |
| jamiehannaford | I believe that an interface is the most important thing | 15:53 |
| mfer | Drupal has millions of downloads. It's just not a project on github. very different style. Even Drupal 8 which is using some Symfony components isn't adopting the Symfony style for its own code | 15:53 |
| jamiehannaford | state should be modified through an interface | 15:53 |
| mfer | Wordpress has millions of downloads and is stylistically entirely different | 15:53 |
| mfer | going by github numbers only holds to projects on github | 15:53 |
| jamiehannaford | are you advocating we use a procedural style like WP? | 15:53 |
| *** thomas_morin has quit IRC | 15:54 | |
| mfer | haha, no. just making it in a way accessible to those developers to integrate in | 15:54 |
| mfer | my point was more to look at community opinions. symfony with millions of downloads is still a subset of PHP developers | 15:54 |
| *** tomoe_ has quit IRC | 15:54 | |
| jamiehannaford | but if developers *are* successful with symfony, guzzle et al - why do you think they won't be if we use private visibility? | 15:54 |
| jamiehannaford | that's what i don't understand | 15:54 |
| mfer | lets go to my two use cases | 15:55 |
| jamiehannaford | samchoi what do you think about the importance of an interface? | 15:55 |
| mfer | "1. Someone needs to add functionality to a class but can't add it back | 15:55 |
| mfer | upstream. That could be because they are in a hurry to get their app | 15:55 |
| mfer | out and aren't concerned with contributing it or because the | 15:55 |
| mfer | organization they work for won't let them release it in a timely | 15:55 |
| mfer | manner or ever." | 15:55 |
| mfer | this could be added functionality or a bug | 15:55 |
| *** jpich has quit IRC | 15:55 | |
| samchoi | can you elaborate jamiehannaford ? Since I could misinterpret what you mean | 15:56 |
| mfer | the easy way I've seen countless times is to extend the class, alter what needs to be altered, and use the new class in place of the old one | 15:56 |
| *** pballand has quit IRC | 15:56 | |
| mfer | what alternative method should be used? | 15:56 |
| jamiehannaford | there's so ways to change the state of an object: the first is directly accessing its properties. the second is to call methods defined on an interface | 15:56 |
| jamiehannaford | I heavily prefer the second | 15:56 |
| mfer | no, i mean the internals of what's happening (not what's passed in or returned) needs to be changed | 15:57 |
| jamiehannaford | mfer could you elaborate on what type of functionality we expect users to be adding to the SDK? | 15:58 |
| samchoi | more than the exact functionality being added to the SDK, I thought the bigger issue was that the small group of contributors we have wouldn't be able to predict what our end users would ultimately end up doing with the SDK? | 16:00 |
| mfer | an assumption is we know what to expect. i don't think we can ever say we know everything they'd want to do. | 16:00 |
| mfer | say the openstack setup they're talking to has a custom extension. so, they need to alter a method on a class to take advantage of that extension | 16:01 |
| *** pballand has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:01 | |
| *** jcoufal has quit IRC | 16:02 | |
| *** amotoki has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:02 | |
| *** terryw has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:03 | |
| mfer | another example is they want to inject logging in specific spaces between the code. maybe it's for debugging or custom audit purposes. | 16:04 |
| jamiehannaford | mfer you'd use DI for that | 16:04 |
| jamiehannaford | that satisfies the PSR interface or something | 16:04 |
| jamiehannaford | I can't really respond with specifics unless there's a specific scenario you're worried about | 16:05 |
| mfer | that's the idea. we don't knwo the specifics | 16:05 |
| jamiehannaford | an API is a promise to the end-user - if we're not confident in it, or don't enforce it, what value does it have? | 16:06 |
| jamiehannaford | all I'm saying is that there are better ways to extend behaviour | 16:06 |
| jamiehannaford | ways that are well known to LOTS of PHP devs | 16:06 |
| mfer | the promise is defined in the interface. we supply one implementation of that against vanilla openstack. | 16:07 |
| jamiehannaford | and if we think inheritance is the ONLY thing they know, we're selling them massively short | 16:07 |
| mfer | how people alter openstack (which is built in) or need to extend our SDK is up to them | 16:07 |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 16:07 | |
| jamiehannaford | sure, and inheritance is not the only way to do that | 16:07 |
| jamiehannaford | it's actually an anti-pattern that causes a lot of harm | 16:07 |
| jamiehannaford | this is not a debate about extension. I support extension massively | 16:07 |
| jamiehannaford | this is about whether inheritance should be actively promoted with open visibility | 16:08 |
| mfer | open visibility to what? to all the innerds or just a subset chosen by the developer who doesn't know the use case the new person has to deal with | 16:09 |
| mfer | there's a difference between a promise (though an interface) and enabling devs of different styles to extend things | 16:09 |
| jamiehannaford | protected visibility is as dangerous as public visibility | 16:10 |
| mfer | to whom? the person who needs to make a fast alteration to deliver on time | 16:10 |
| jamiehannaford | mfer I disagree. you're unnecessarily promoting bad practice when there better and more effective ways to extend/modify/access behaviour | 16:10 |
| mfer | note, the alternative will be people who change the core code of the class and have to manage that change... or not | 16:10 |
| mfer | there will be people who do that | 16:10 |
| jamiehannaford | yes, and to us who can't refactor something in 6 months because we've opened up the entire class | 16:11 |
| mfer | they will just stay with their legacy code which they've altered | 16:11 |
| mfer | if we refactor we increment the semver accordingly | 16:11 |
| jamiehannaford | right, but you can't introduce a non-BC change | 16:11 |
| jamiehannaford | making things protected obliges us to support multiple APIs | 16:12 |
| mfer | we make promises with interfaces and the code openstack ship noted via semver. what others do with it is on them not us | 16:12 |
| jamiehannaford | which restricts us down the line | 16:12 |
| jamiehannaford | so if we're actively saying "do not do this - it is not supported" and we know other libraries are incredibly successful pushing other forms of extension, why do we believe inheritance is right for us? | 16:12 |
| mfer | any change they make to our stuff is on them not us | 16:12 |
| mfer | we can't make API changes without incrementing the first number of the semver | 16:13 |
| *** terryw has quit IRC | 16:13 | |
| jamiehannaford | we have a responsibility to our users to make sure we support them - we can't just say "use whatever, but we don't support this bit if you break it" | 16:13 |
| mfer | we need to be careful to not try to control people but instead enable | 16:14 |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:14 | |
| mfer | if they alter the codebase they altered it | 16:14 |
| jamiehannaford | we support them with well-defined APIs and solidify those expectations | 16:14 |
| samchoi | About public/protected, I would argue that it's not dangerous given that things like the final class weren't around until Java introduced it. Some languages still don't have a concept of final classes. End users of APIs were doing alright before the concept of 'final' existed so it seems a bit extreme so say that we're restricting ourselves simply by making classes extendable | 16:14 |
| samchoi | however, I do support final classes in the right circumstances | 16:14 |
| samchoi | although, imo, it'd be rare for an API like ours | 16:15 |
| samchoi | and sorry getting distracted by a 2nd meeting | 16:15 |
| jamiehannaford | but the fact is, it doesn't matter what we didn't have in the past - we have these language features now | 16:16 |
| mfer | there are patterns where we don't need private/final and are fairly simple for this stuff | 16:16 |
| jamiehannaford | they were introduced for a reason | 16:16 |
| mfer | when to use them is debated | 16:16 |
| jamiehannaford | mfer which patterns? | 16:16 |
| mfer | jamiehannaford so, samchoi and I are totally distracted in a second meeting. i need to pay attention right now. can I send it to the mailing list? | 16:17 |
| jamiehannaford | yeah, sure | 16:17 |
| jamiehannaford | sorry for overrunning :) | 16:17 |
| samchoi | good discussion topic | 16:17 |
| *** eghobo has quit IRC | 16:18 | |
| *** eghobo has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:18 | |
| mfer | jamiehannaford nothing to be sorry about. i understand where all this is coming from. I just happen to have spent time in other corners of the PHP world. I want to help all of them be successful. even many of those who will do things I won't. | 16:19 |
| mfer | I know we didn't get to all the topics... is it ok to end now? | 16:19 |
| jamiehannaford | yep, fine with me | 16:20 |
| samchoi | alright | 16:20 |
| mfer | jamiehannaford thanks! | 16:20 |
| mfer | #endmeeting | 16:21 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 16:21 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Jun 18 16:21:03 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 16:21 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-06-18-15.30.html | 16:21 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-06-18-15.30.txt | 16:21 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/openstack_sdk_php/2014/openstack_sdk_php.2014-06-18-15.30.log.html | 16:21 |
| *** pballand has quit IRC | 16:23 | |
| *** tjones has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:27 | |
| *** yjiang5 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:29 | |
| tjones | #startmeeting nova bug scrub | 16:30 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Jun 18 16:30:19 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is tjones. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 16:30 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 16:30 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: nova bug scrub)" | 16:30 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'nova_bug_scrub' | 16:30 |
| tjones | hi anyone here today? | 16:30 |
| stratuspaulg | hi, tjones, I'm new here. | 16:30 |
| tjones | welcome stratuspaulg | 16:30 |
| stratuspaulg | Thanks! | 16:30 |
| stratuspaulg | I'm here to lobby to get the following bug fixed: | 16:31 |
| stratuspaulg | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1239864 | 16:31 |
| wendar_ | o/ | 16:31 |
| *** wendar_ is now known as wendar | 16:31 | |
| yjiang5 | o/ | 16:31 |
| stratuspaulg | or at least assigned. | 16:31 |
| tjones | ok lets start with that bug then today | 16:32 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1239864 | 16:32 |
| stratuspaulg | thank you | 16:33 |
| tjones | stratuspaulg: you have a patch for this ?? | 16:33 |
| stratuspaulg | yes, it is attached to the bug report | 16:33 |
| stratuspaulg | we have tested the patch on Havana and Icehouse and it works for both | 16:33 |
| tjones | why not push upstream? | 16:34 |
| tjones | i mean you've already done the work, why not get the credit? | 16:34 |
| stratuspaulg | Good question. I'm new at all this. And I don't grok Python, so I'm reluctant to push something I don't understand. | 16:34 |
| stratuspaulg | I'm assuming there is no CI test for Zookeeper, or it would be obvious that ZK is broken. | 16:35 |
| tjones | ok anyone here familiar with zookeeper? | 16:35 |
| stratuspaulg | so that's another risk. | 16:35 |
| wendar | stratuspaulg: well, the nice thing about review is it won't go in without several people looking at it who do know the code | 16:35 |
| stratuspaulg | wendear: good to know | 16:35 |
| wendar | and, you'll have an opportunity to respond to comments, and even upload revised versions of the patch if you need to | 16:36 |
| tjones | stratuspaulg: the process is that you publish a patch and several people review it - including people who are familar with the area (core reviewers). Only until 2 of them approve does it get merged | 16:36 |
| *** nacim has quit IRC | 16:36 | |
| stratuspaulg | so I should take a deep breath and push it? I feel dumb asking, but those steps are presumably documented on the wiki. | 16:37 |
| tjones | you would need to get it into juno and then propose a backport to icehouse. I think havana is done now so thats as far back as you could go | 16:37 |
| tjones | yes it's on a wiki - just a sec | 16:37 |
| stratuspaulg | tjones: ok | 16:37 |
| stratuspaulg | we don't need it in Havana. We would like it in Icehouse. | 16:37 |
| stratuspaulg | June first makes sense. | 16:37 |
| wendar | and, if you run into any questions from the wiki, we're around on #openstack-dev to answer | 16:37 |
| stratuspaulg | Is the process similar for adding a CI test? | 16:37 |
| stratuspaulg | wendar: beautiful! | 16:38 |
| tjones | still looking | 16:38 |
| tjones | wendar: do you happen to know here the processes is documented? I just can find this one https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Gerrit_Workflow | 16:38 |
| wendar | tjones: that would be the one | 16:39 |
| wendar | you may also find this one helpful: http://www.joinfu.com/2014/01/understanding-the-openstack-ci-system/ | 16:39 |
| tjones | stratuspaulg: it's such a small patch - it will be a good experience to do it ;-) | 16:39 |
| stratuspaulg | OK, I'll read up and it and give it a whirl. Many thanks to all of you. I'll notify openstack-dev if I have problems/questions. | 16:39 |
| stratuspaulg | tjones: sure. indeed. | 16:40 |
| tjones | stratuspaulg: good luck! | 16:40 |
| stratuspaulg | wendar: thanks | 16:40 |
| tjones | ok moving on | 16:40 |
| tjones | so i have already done the tagging and thought we could do something different this time | 16:40 |
| tjones | sorry for the long link - | 16:40 |
| tjones | https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.searchtext=&orderby=-importance&search=Search&field.status%3Alist=NEW&assignee_option=any&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=&field.structural_subscriber=&field.tag=&field.tags_combinator=ANY&field.has_cve.used=&field.omit_dupes.used=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.affects_me.used=&field.has_patch.used=&field.has_branches.used=&field.has_bran | 16:40 |
| tjones | this is the untriaged list | 16:41 |
| wendar | ah, good idea | 16:41 |
| *** tomoe_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:41 | |
| tjones | there are 182 bugs here - so we will just scratch the serface | 16:42 |
| tjones | or surface | 16:42 |
| wendar | any progress is good | 16:42 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1311778 | 16:42 |
| tjones | this one is marked critical by sdague | 16:43 |
| *** mike-grima has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:43 | |
| tjones | im not sure there is much to do done based on mridem's analysis. thoughts? | 16:44 |
| wendar | ISTR, they're working on it, and it is about slow VMs | 16:45 |
| tjones | the possiblity of masking a big issue makes me reluctant to just punt on it though | 16:45 |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 16:45 | |
| wendar | so, I don't think there's much we can do at the moment | 16:45 |
| wendar | I'm tempted to assign it to sdague, since he marked it critical | 16:45 |
| tjones | heh | 16:45 |
| wendar | but, should probably talk to him first | 16:45 |
| *** armax has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:45 | |
| tjones | sdague: you want to take https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1311778 on?? | 16:46 |
| tjones | ok lets move on | 16:46 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1291471 | 16:46 |
| *** cjellick_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:46 | |
| tjones | this is on havana | 16:47 |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 16:47 | |
| tjones | does not happen on icehouse | 16:48 |
| wendar | should it be tagged for possible backport? | 16:48 |
| wendar | Incomplete seems appropriate, still. | 16:48 |
| tjones | wonder if it could be backported | 16:49 |
| tjones | because they are asking for more cinder logs? | 16:49 |
| *** cjellick has quit IRC | 16:50 | |
| wendar | wasn't able to retest on Icehouse, and yes, last entry was a request for more information | 16:50 |
| tjones | ok asked for the logs again and moved to incompelte | 16:51 |
| tjones | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1129748 | 16:51 |
| wendar | and, last input from the reporter was mid-April | 16:51 |
| tjones | this one also is old as the hills | 16:52 |
| wendar | seems stalled | 16:52 |
| tjones | yes | 16:52 |
| wendar | if we can verify it's not a problem in icehouse and beyond, maybe Incomplete and allowing it to die is best | 16:53 |
| wendar | maybe also checking in with packagers to see if this is a problem for them | 16:54 |
| tjones | i don't see why it would not be a problem in icehouse though. who are the packagers?? | 16:54 |
| wendar | I know them in Ubuntu and Debian, not sure on Fedora/RHEL. | 16:55 |
| wendar | zigo is Debian | 16:56 |
| zigo | Hi. | 16:56 |
| wendar | hi zigo, any thoughts on whether https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1129748 is a problem for packagers? | 16:56 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 16:57 | |
| * zigo reads | 16:57 | |
| zigo | I agree images shouldn't be world readable. | 16:58 |
| zigo | We would consider this as a security issue in Debian. | 16:58 |
| wendar | Do you think it can be fixed in OpenStack, or only in the packaging for each distro? | 16:59 |
| *** mike-grima has quit IRC | 16:59 | |
| zigo | Even though a low importance one, as there's not so much use case for having a multi-user computer which also does compute workload. | 16:59 |
| wendar | :) | 17:00 |
| zigo | wendar: I think it's up to OpenStack to do that, cause the distro is only creating /var/lib/nova, nothing else. | 17:00 |
| tjones | thanks zigo. wendar i need to drop off to start my next meeting. thanks for your help today | 17:01 |
| wendar | zigo, okay, thanks | 17:01 |
| wendar | tjones: sounds like we need to contact xavier and see if he's planning on doing anything with this | 17:01 |
| wendar | tjones: I can do that | 17:01 |
| tjones | ok thanks | 17:01 |
| tjones | #endmeeting | 17:02 |
| *** nlahouti has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:02 | |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 17:02 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Jun 18 17:02:01 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 17:02 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova_bug_scrub/2014/nova_bug_scrub.2014-06-18-16.30.html | 17:02 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova_bug_scrub/2014/nova_bug_scrub.2014-06-18-16.30.txt | 17:02 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/nova_bug_scrub/2014/nova_bug_scrub.2014-06-18-16.30.log.html | 17:02 |
| zigo | I think 2 actions should happen: remove the r bit from images, and remove the x bit from the folder. | 17:02 |
| zigo | (so that nobody can read the folder) | 17:02 |
| zigo | Hum... I'll write in the bug report! :) | 17:02 |
| wendar | zigo: thanks! | 17:02 |
| *** jmsoares has quit IRC | 17:02 | |
| *** mike-grima has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:05 | |
| *** amotoki has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 17:07 | |
| *** anil_rao has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:13 | |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 17:13 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:19 | |
| *** rm_work is now known as rm_work|away | 17:20 | |
| *** armax has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:21 | |
| *** samchoi has quit IRC | 17:25 | |
| *** vinay_yadhav has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:27 | |
| *** cathy_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:28 | |
| *** LouisF has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:29 | |
| *** SridarK has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:29 | |
| *** jmsoares has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:29 | |
| *** s3wong has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:29 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 17:29 | |
| banix | Any Advanced person here? :) | 17:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: yo! | 17:30 |
| *** regXboi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:30 | |
| mike-grima | Hello Sumit | 17:30 |
| SridarK | Hi | 17:30 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: hi | 17:30 |
| cgoncalves | banix: not even close :-) | 17:30 |
| cgoncalves | hi folk | 17:30 |
| vinay_yadhav | hello! | 17:30 |
| regXboi | am I not fasionably late? | 17:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: i believe everyone is busy doing their review homework :-P | 17:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | at least i hope | 17:30 |
| s3wong | Hello | 17:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mike-grima SridarK cgoncalves vinay_yadhav regXboi s3wong: hi | 17:31 |
| banix | what homework you mean fun tasks | 17:31 |
| mike-grima | Sumit, I finally found time to enter the IRC. To review, I was the one working on the Firewall thesis | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: we are going to check on that | 17:31 |
| * regXboi attempts conference call in parallel with irc meeting | 17:31 | |
| banix | cgoncalves: all hello | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok lets get started | 17:31 |
| * regXboi thinks this might get very strange | 17:31 | |
| vinay_yadhav | i am reviewing the spec will be done with it today | 17:31 |
| enikanorov | hi all | 17:31 |
| banix | regXboi: it will | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #startmeeting Networking Advanced Services | 17:31 |
| *** rkukura has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:31 | |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Jun 18 17:31:41 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 17:31 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 17:31 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:31 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'networking_advanced_services' | 17:31 |
| rkukura | hi | 17:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info agenda: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/AdvancedServices | 17:31 |
| cathy_ | hi | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | to put things into perspective, here is the Neutron Juno project plan (as proposed by the PTL earlier) | 17:32 |
| regXboi | I'm pretty sure I've reviewed all the BPs | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info Neutron Juno Project Plan: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronJunoProjectPlan | 17:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we need to prioritize accordingly | 17:32 |
| *** OSM has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:33 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think we are on track, but just wanted to put it out there | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Action item review | 17:33 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Action item review (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:33 | |
| regXboi | we are tracking to -2 right? | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: yes absolutely | 17:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | -2 and -3 | 17:33 |
| regXboi | thx | 17:33 |
| s3wong | regXboi: service insertion seems to be J-3 | 17:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | all of us had the homework assignment to vote up or down on the prioritized features: #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/AdvancedServices/JunoPlan | 17:34 |
| *** pgpus has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:34 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: it needs to land much sooner to be reviewed in time for J-3 | 17:34 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: absolutely | 17:35 |
| *** pcm_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:35 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks to all who reviewed | 17:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | any general comment that anyone wants to make regarding the reviews (before we get into the specifics)? | 17:36 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: flavor just uploaded a new spec, thus negating all our hard-earned +/- 1s | 17:36 |
| *** natarajk has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:36 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: ha | 17:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: please give enikanorov credit he is working hard | 17:36 |
| enikanorov | i'll give an update shortly | 17:36 |
| *** rm_work|away is now known as rm_work | 17:36 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | the other AI from last meeting was by enikanorov to himself to put some specific updates in the spec, and i believe he has done that | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so with that lets dive in | 17:37 |
| s3wong | flavor is targeted for the LBaaS mid-cycle, so everyone suddenly commented on flavor framework :-) | 17:37 |
| *** badveli has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:37 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Flavors | 17:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Flavors (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 17:37 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90070 | 17:37 |
| enikanorov | yes, we all love those people jumping in to the last cab of the train :) | 17:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: go ahead with your update | 17:37 |
| enikanorov | so, there was several major updates | 17:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: i noticed you just uploaded another patch | 17:38 |
| enikanorov | yes, so let me describe updates from the last week's version | 17:38 |
| enikanorov | 1. REST API | 17:38 |
| enikanorov | tags have their separate resource | 17:38 |
| enikanorov | that might be harder to use from CLI perspective, but will allow some flexibility later | 17:39 |
| enikanorov | such as updating tags | 17:39 |
| enikanorov | also it allowed to add attitional attribute to a tag within a flavor: visibility | 17:39 |
| enikanorov | so admin can create tag invisible to a user | 17:39 |
| *** dlenrow has quit IRC | 17:40 | |
| enikanorov | this way admin can create mapping between flavors and drivers that support same set of capabilities | 17:40 |
| enikanorov | so, for example "VendorName" tag may be invisible withing the flavor | 17:40 |
| enikanorov | so Gold and Silver flavors will show exactly same capabilities to a user, but internally they map to different providers | 17:41 |
| enikanorov | how do you like the idea? | 17:41 |
| garyduan | enikanorov: how the admin created flavor bind to a vendor driver? | 17:41 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:41 | |
| enikanorov | the idea is that driver may extend its capabilities from configuration | 17:42 |
| *** beyounn has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:42 | |
| enikanorov | and that can be usd to create such artifical mapping | 17:42 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:43 | |
| enikanorov | more questions on this idea? | 17:43 |
| s3wong | enikanorov: do tenants get to query the list of capabilities from a Flavor? | 17:43 |
| enikanorov | they may do 'list-flavors' and 'show-flavor', latter will give everything that is visible | 17:44 |
| enikanorov | all flavor tags and their values | 17:44 |
| garyduan | enikanorov: I understand that we have discussed this many times, but I have a question | 17:44 |
| enikanorov | garyduan: shoot | 17:44 |
| cathy_ | Are the additional attributes used for helping selecting the driver in the case that multiple drivers support the user's flavor request? | 17:44 |
| garyduan | enikanorov: In real world, would the operator create flavors purely based on capabilities that vendors expose | 17:44 |
| LouisF | enikanorov: can a tenant create a flavor? | 17:45 |
| enikanorov | garyduan: hmm, i don't know. I'd like to give ability that will suit different needs. | 17:45 |
| enikanorov | LouisF: no | 17:45 |
| *** Sukhdev has quit IRC | 17:45 | |
| garyduan | enikanorov: or, what vendors expose are just informational for the admin | 17:45 |
| enikanorov | cathy_: that might be. that's up to admin | 17:45 |
| enikanorov | garyduan: right, what vendors expose is for admin | 17:45 |
| garyduan | enikanorov: admin creates flavor directly mapped to the vendor, but doesn't have to expose the vendor name | 17:45 |
| enikanorov | garyduan: yes, it is possible to do so, if it is needed. | 17:46 |
| s3wong | enikanorov: garyduan: the reason I asked the above question is, if there are tags that aren't visible to user (or even if it is visible), vendor can add vendor-tag, and operator can simply map vendor tag to a Flavor | 17:46 |
| pcm_ | enikanorov: As expressed in spec, I'm wondering how we handle large number of capabilities, like VPN has. | 17:46 |
| enikanorov | s3wong: yes, that's the example i've given | 17:46 |
| s3wong | garyduan: thus giving an elegant way for direct mapping of a Flavor to a vendor | 17:46 |
| garyduan | enikanorov: I know this is a subset of current proposal | 17:46 |
| enikanorov | pcm_: we need to think about it. that might be some 'tag suggestion' from the driver... | 17:47 |
| garyduan | what I am not clear is the still the binding part | 17:47 |
| *** safchain has quit IRC | 17:47 | |
| enikanorov | i'd put it out from initial implementation | 17:47 |
| enikanorov | garyduan: binding is flavor_id in the resource + as in provider framework | 17:47 |
| *** Kanzhe has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:48 | |
| LouisF | enikanorov: can we rename tag to capability? | 17:48 |
| cathy_ | Thanks for your reply. I am not sure what is meant by "up to Admin". I was thinking the Flavor framework internal algorithm will automatically select the best driver based on some configured priority criteria in the case that multiple drivers satisfy the user's flavor request. Could you clarify | 17:48 |
| garyduan | I mean the tag created by the admin, how to bind it to a driver | 17:48 |
| cathy_ | how the "Admin" selection works? | 17:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok lets have a little more order to the conversation | 17:48 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think enikanorov is getting slammed here | 17:49 |
| s3wong | LouisF: why? wouldn't "tag" be better if we want to use tag for more than just driver capability in the future? | 17:49 |
| * pcm_ SumitNaiksatam +1 | 17:49 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | so let me first ask, the questions that are being asked here, have they been added to the review? | 17:49 |
| enikanorov | LouisF: hmm, i know that may create confusion. i think tag is what admin or user work with, and capability is what driver/backend supports | 17:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: one sec | 17:49 |
| enikanorov | these are the same notion in different 'places' | 17:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | asking again, have the questions being asked here posted in the review | 17:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i can understand that some of the changes came in late, so people probably have not had a chance to review those | 17:50 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: enikanorov: the only comment I have was that instead of adding flavor_id attribute to each service instance, it is already in the ServiceBase, so no need to do that | 17:50 |
| garyduan | For my question, not yet. | 17:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: cathy_ LouisF pcm_: your questions? | 17:50 |
| enikanorov | s3wong: i'm not sure, but i think it still needed in the service instance resource | 17:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: ok | 17:51 |
| enikanorov | unless you're redefining whole extension framework | 17:51 |
| LouisF | wil post | 17:51 |
| pcm_ | SumitNaiksatam: mine was voiced in the review. | 17:51 |
| s3wong | enikanorov: SumitNaiksatam: however, I do understand flavor is going to land before service insertion, so perhaps you want it for initial implementation | 17:51 |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: I've also added the section about how to organize tags | 17:51 |
| cathy_ | not quite. | 17:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | pcm_: ok, in that case enikanorov do you think you have answered all the previous questions? | 17:51 |
| enikanorov | will copy it here as well: http://paste.openstack.org/show/84407/ | 17:51 |
| cathy_ | will post | 17:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | just want to make sure that some of the questions are not lost when new patch sets are posted | 17:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | otherwise we end up discussing the same thing and are not making progress here | 17:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i really wanted that we would get closure on the spec today | 17:52 |
| garyduan | I will post to the spec review. | 17:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | however, it seems that people have more questions at this stage | 17:52 |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: +10^10^10 | 17:52 |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: we are all trying our best and understand the frustration an your end too | 17:53 |
| enikanorov | *more people have more questions :) | 17:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | is Stephen Balukoffhere? | 17:53 |
| *** nati_ueno has quit IRC | 17:53 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i dont know his IRC handle | 17:53 |
| enikanorov | 1 sec | 17:53 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: do you? | 17:53 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: he is in #openstack-lbaas | 17:53 |
| enikanorov | yes, i've invited him | 17:53 |
| *** prasadv has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:53 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: thats great | 17:53 |
| enikanorov | hehe | 17:54 |
| *** nati_ueno has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:54 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | he seemed to be representing the operator view, and i think we should definitely factor that opinion | 17:54 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: sbalukoff | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we also need to be pragmatic | 17:54 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: I also asked him to join at #openstack-lbaas | 17:54 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in terms of what making a start here, versus trying to land everything and not getting anything | 17:55 |
| pgpus | I believe no two service will have same capability ever, so simple baseclass with tag extesions for back end capability i s good enough for first cut, the only question is who dwfines tags admin or service tenenant and that can be sorted out | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: thanks | 17:55 |
| *** sbalukoff has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:55 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | pgpus: ok | 17:55 |
| sbalukoff | Hi folks! | 17:55 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: there he is. Welcome sbalukoff!!! | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i also had a suggestion that the tags can be namespaced, so that we can avoid ambiguity and overlaps | 17:55 |
| enikanorov | pgpus: no classes for tags for science sake! | 17:55 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: you have question for sbalukoff? | 17:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sbalukoff: welcome | 17:55 |
| *** ctracey has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:56 | |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: see the pseudocode example. does it answers your concerns? | 17:56 |
| *** dougwig has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 17:56 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | sbalukoff: we are tracking the flavors spec | 17:56 |
| sbalukoff | Excellent! | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: my apologies i did not get a chance to read the latest version | 17:56 |
| sbalukoff | I'm very opinionated. Sorry! | 17:56 |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: http://paste.openstack.org/show/84407/ | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sbalukoff: we noticed that you had some comments | 17:56 |
| sbalukoff | Indeed. :) | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and we want to make sure that those are heard/addressed | 17:56 |
| enikanorov | that's specifically for the tags organization | 17:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: ok | 17:57 |
| sbalukoff | We are here at the neutron-lbaas hackathon in Texas and were about to discuss Flavors as well. | 17:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sbalukoff: we discuss this on a weekly basis, and enikanorov has been diliegently on this spec for a few months now | 17:57 |
| sbalukoff | What time does this meeting end? Are we going to be OK on time? | 17:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we really need to make progress with at least getting the first iteration in | 17:57 |
| sbalukoff | Aah. Ok. | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sbalukoff: are your concerns addressed in the lates patch set posted by enikanorov? | 17:58 |
| s3wong | sbalukoff: it ends at 1:30pm central time | 17:58 |
| sbalukoff | Well, let's make sure we aren't going to be shooting ourselves in the foot. :) | 17:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sbalukoff: most definitely | 17:58 |
| s3wong | i.e., in 30 minutes | 17:58 |
| sbalukoff | SumitNaiksatam: Actually, my concerns are not addressed by that. I just got done responding to the BP. XD | 17:58 |
| enikanorov | sbalukoff: regarding the matching. WHole purpose of the framework was to get rid of 1:1 matching and make it flaxible | 17:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sbalukoff: ah ok | 17:59 |
| enikanorov | and depentend on capabilities | 17:59 |
| Kanzhe | enykeev: I posted a suggestion in the review to separate capability into two, user-facing capabilities, driver capabilities. Provider can manage the mapping between the two. | 17:59 |
| sbalukoff | enikanorov: I think I'm starting to understand that, but then how do you propose to provide a way for vendors to expose unique advanced features? | 17:59 |
| Kanzhe | s/enykeev/enikavorov | 17:59 |
| enikanorov | sbalukoff: just like non-unique ones | 17:59 |
| enikanorov | sbalukoff: it's actually up to the admin to expose this to user | 18:00 |
| sbalukoff | Ok, I get that non-unique ones. Tags make a lot of sense for that. | 18:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so we are 30 mins into the meeting discussing this one topic | 18:00 |
| sbalukoff | Could vendors, say, provide unique tags that apply to features they only can provide? | 18:00 |
| SumitNaiksatam | should we call a separate one off meeting to address any residual concerns? | 18:00 |
| *** igordcard has quit IRC | 18:00 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: what do you think? | 18:00 |
| enikanorov | sbalukoff: absolutely. they can | 18:01 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: enikanorov: I am attending the LBaaS mid-cycle as well. If there is any strong objection to flavor or new ideas, I will let you guys know | 18:01 |
| sbalukoff | enikanorov: I agree that the admin/operator needs to have final say in what is exposed to the user. | 18:01 |
| sbalukoff | But Vendors need to have a way to expose their functionality to admins/operators so that they can decide whether to expose this to users. | 18:01 |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: please +2 minutes :) | 18:01 |
| enikanorov | sbalukoff: and they can do that | 18:01 |
| SumitNaiksatam | folks i am happy to spend to the whole hour on this topic if we have a gaurantee to have consensus at the end of the hour :-P | 18:02 |
| sbalukoff | enikanorov: That's great then! Could you update your BP with an example as to how this is done? | 18:02 |
| LouisF | +1 | 18:02 |
| enikanorov | sbalukoff: yes. it actually has a pseudocode example of that, i;ll update that example wth vendor-specific tags | 18:02 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: unlikely as the LBaaS folks and markmcclain will be talking about flavor later in the day | 18:02 |
| sbalukoff | SumitNaiksatam: I can only guarantee that I will argue honestly and without the intent to obstruct. I'd like to see us get this defined and done, too! | 18:02 |
| enikanorov | (or 'capabilities') | 18:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: i dont understand why there need to be different sets of discussion | 18:03 |
| sbalukoff | enikanorov: As long as the vendor interface isn't terrible, then I think I'm OK with flavors as you have described it in the BP. | 18:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: i would have expected markmcclain and the rest of the lbaas team to have participated here | 18:03 |
| enikanorov | sbalukoff: great to hear! | 18:03 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: more of a face to face thing, and markmcclain is in a separate meeting at the moment | 18:03 |
| pcm_ | would it make sense to identify a few cases/scenarios, and show examples in the spec to aide in understanding? | 18:04 |
| sbalukoff | SumitNaiksatam: We can ask them to join if you'd like. | 18:04 |
| sbalukoff | They're sitting across the room from me. | 18:04 |
| enikanorov | ok, lets discuss flavors after he meeting | 18:04 |
| enikanorov | *the | 18:04 |
| sbalukoff | pcm_: Yes, it would. | 18:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov sbalukoff: so it seems that we have some high level consensus | 18:04 |
| pcm_ | sbalukoff: seems like we have a few, and that may help answer questions. | 18:04 |
| s3wong | enikanorov: sure. hopefully you will still be awake on the #openstack-lbaas channel by then :-) | 18:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: so you will be putting a new patch set? | 18:05 |
| sbalukoff | We've been doing a lot of hand-waving in other discussions, shuffling off difficult configuration or edge cases to this magical "flavors" framework. So knowing that it can actually deliver most of the features we want is a good idea! | 18:05 |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: yes, with a bit more details | 18:05 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:05 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: sweet | 18:05 |
| pcm_ | enikanorov: great work btw. | 18:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so lets set some milestones for this | 18:06 |
| enikanorov | thanks, folks | 18:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | flavor framework is targeted for J-2 | 18:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and we dont have the spec approved yet | 18:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am not saying that we need to approve the spec because we have set the milestone | 18:06 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but we should try if we can to meet the milestones | 18:06 |
| sbalukoff | So again, the asshole in me must point out that you have "tentative" agreement from me. :) So please be descriptive in your examples, enikanorov! :D | 18:06 |
| enikanorov | hope to get +1 from your better part, sbalukoff! :) | 18:07 |
| pcm_ | SumitNaiksatam: Could we summarize the cases/scenarios here, so enikanorov has info on what to add to the spec as examples? | 18:08 |
| garyduan | enikanorov: I posted my question to the review. | 18:08 |
| enikanorov | pcm_: let's put it offline, i think meeting needs to go further | 18:08 |
| pcm_ | k | 18:08 |
| SridarK | enikanorov: we should target the basic framework and keep bells and whistles for later patches | 18:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: i dont mind using up another 5 mins | 18:09 |
| *** tmc3inphilly has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:09 | |
| *** cjellick_ has quit IRC | 18:09 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: can you quickly summarize at a high level what you will be addressing? | 18:09 |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: first of all it is API, DB, common module having a data structures for tag names and possible values, so developers could extend them | 18:10 |
| *** cjellick has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:10 | |
| s3wong | more lbaas folks joining :-) | 18:10 |
| pgpus | service has both producer and consumer and a venor or supplier who define the capabilities, thus as long all three get their basisc minum framework we are ok | 18:10 |
| enikanorov | so actually things like matching/selection is left for integration phase | 18:10 |
| pgpus | So flavor needs to cater to all three views | 18:10 |
| enikanorov | as well as extending drivers with additional capabilities | 18:10 |
| enikanorov | although i think to include dummy plugin with drivers into the unit tests as an example | 18:11 |
| pgpus | OK is abuilder of this we support moduler drivers and or filetrs to provie the base capability in Flavor and extend them through tags | 18:12 |
| pgpus | So let you folks work backchannel with Sumit, shall we move to next topic? | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: anything more? | 18:13 |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: nope | 18:13 |
| enikanorov | thanks for the additional time! | 18:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so the rest of the team feels comfortable with these items being addressed? (a +1 will help here) | 18:13 |
| pgpus | sure | 18:13 |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:14 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok, no objections at least | 18:14 |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 18:14 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: thanks much on this | 18:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: perhaps we can also schedule an irc meeting while the lbaas folks are meeting f2f | 18:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | perhaps tomorrow? | 18:14 |
| enikanorov | i would not mind. | 18:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong sbalukoff: what do you guys think? | 18:15 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: sure, we will still be in this meeting tomorrow | 18:15 |
| banix | enikanorov: are you at the f2f? | 18:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | you can channelize your feedback from your discussion today | 18:15 |
| enikanorov | banix: no | 18:15 |
| pcm_ | +1 | 18:15 |
| s3wong | banix: no enikanorov isn't (the meeting is in Texas) | 18:15 |
| *** tjones has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:15 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 18:15 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: so lets set a time for tomorrow, and send it out to the -dev mailer | 18:15 |
| banix | yes lets move this forward | 18:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: ^^^ | 18:16 |
| enikanorov | SumitNaiksatam: we may do it at lbaas meeting may be? | 18:16 |
| sbalukoff | No objections from me just yet. | 18:16 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: he just stepped out of the room (and away from his computer) for the moment | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | mestery: proposing an IRC for flavors discussion tomorrow with you guys | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: ok | 18:16 |
| enikanorov | sbalukoff: s3wong what do you think? | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: sure | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | enikanorov: your call | 18:16 |
| banix | s3wong: what are you doing there ;) | 18:16 |
| s3wong | enikanorov: sure | 18:16 |
| banix | s3wong: just kidding | 18:16 |
| s3wong | banix: that would have been my next update :-) | 18:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks all for the participation and patience on this | 18:16 |
| enikanorov | i'm for keeping flavor discussion at lbaas meeting, 14-00 utc Thursday | 18:17 |
| s3wong | banix: but enikanorov took all the time :P | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | since we have used up majority of the meeting | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and are not going to be able to cover all the items, let me check what is it that you would like to be discussed in the remaining time? | 18:17 |
| banix | and we needed 55 minutes for the steering :) | 18:17 |
| s3wong | banix: probably more | 18:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | should we bring up the service insertion discussion next? | 18:17 |
| banix | can we finalize the steering proposal? | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: :-) | 18:18 |
| s3wong | banix: I haven't even fully read all the options proposed by cgoncalves yet | 18:18 |
| cgoncalves | banix: the steering drama :-) | 18:18 |
| pgpus | yes is carlos there/ | 18:18 |
| cgoncalves | pgpus: guilty! | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: sure | 18:18 |
| banix | cgoncalves: it’s all good :) | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Traffic steering | 18:18 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Traffic steering (Meeting topic: Networking Advanced Services)" | 18:18 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/92477 | 18:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: go ahead | 18:19 |
| cgoncalves | sorry, let me ask this: is Prakash here? I don't know his nick | 18:19 |
| *** ivar-lazzaro has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:19 | |
| banix | cgoncalves: pls go ahead | 18:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | pgpus: ^^^ | 18:19 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: pgpus? | 18:20 |
| s3wong | cgoncalves: pgpus? | 18:20 |
| cgoncalves | I sent a couple of hours ago an email to (hopefully) all of you | 18:20 |
| pgpus | Yes my thinking was for the option D with forwarding graph we need to add actions | 18:20 |
| cgoncalves | pgpus: ah, that's you :-) | 18:20 |
| cgoncalves | in case someone hasn't received the email let me know so that I can also forward to you | 18:21 |
| *** mrunge has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:21 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: you are in favor of option D as well? | 18:21 |
| cgoncalves | #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Z7DjLTTDRDoh8VbLuLL8LtIU0Vw6a5jr_arYPD_Fpc | 18:21 |
| pgpus | seperate out default action and others like reverse, mirror, proxy, redirect what ever that akes sense for use cases | 18:21 |
| banix | I was thinking something simpler would work | 18:21 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: banix: sounds like banix is still in flavor of option A (in his email reply)? | 18:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: ok | 18:21 |
| * regXboi wakes up | 18:22 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: my bad, misread your email | 18:22 |
| banix | Essentially saying option A where ports is a reference to a graph would work fine and | 18:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: yes, you have a -1 too | 18:22 |
| cgoncalves | personally I'm in favor of option D (note that pgpus has overwritten some parts though), but also option C as the simpliest case to implement now | 18:22 |
| banix | probably we can put a restriction right now for the graph if that helps | 18:22 |
| cgoncalves | banix: option C would be the linear chain you were referring to | 18:22 |
| pgpus | The simpler ones a and b or c will be too constrained to allow different service graphs | 18:22 |
| banix | i may have missed the points for adding 1-to-many and others | 18:22 |
| banix | pgpus: saying we use a generic representation of a graph; so this will be very general | 18:23 |
| regXboi | unfortunately, I'm not going to have a chance to review this until this evening :( | 18:23 |
| *** jlibosva has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:23 | |
| cathy_ | I have a concern on the steering API. It provides a API for specifying the service chain. GBP also provides an API for specifying the service chain. Should we have two sets of API for this? Wouldn't this cause confusion to Admin or user? Or has this been sorted out in the latest update? | 18:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: yes, you have a -1 too | 18:23 |
| banix | regXboi: reviews done at night are the best reviews | 18:24 |
| pgpus | That one too many for linkis in chain (port1,Port2) with actions to apply on them and can be split into (prot1,port2)-action plus port(1,Port3) Action types normalizuing bintables | 18:24 |
| cgoncalves | banix: the 1-to-many/many-to-1 could be ignore for now. the default would be 1-to-many as are all other options | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: GP does not provide for service chain | 18:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: GP uses service chain | 18:24 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: exactly | 18:24 |
| cathy_ | Yes, it uses service chain. But there are some overlapping on service chain specification | 18:24 |
| s3wong | cathy_: SumitNaiksatam: yes, GBP could be an implementation of service chain | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: correct that is a different spec, and which can potentially use the traffic steering capability | 18:25 |
| banix | couldn’t we use the list of lists where each list is a source and one or more destination in a directed graph? wouldn’t that be the most general? | 18:25 |
| cgoncalves | pgpus: I still have to go through your suggestions. you introduced even more ideas so... :) | 18:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cathy_: i believe you are referring to: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/93524 | 18:25 |
| cathy_ | I Yes, my understanding is same as s3wong | 18:25 |
| s3wong | cathy_: SumitNaiksatam: cgoncalves: but I do want to say that GBP is unlikely going to use traffic steering | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: i would not quite say that GP is an implementation of a service chain | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: it uses service chain | 18:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok back to the topic of this steering blueprint | 18:26 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: it could be an implementation of the Service Chain framework/APIs | 18:26 |
| pgpus | ok i will let cgoncalves absorb and then update the specs | 18:27 |
| banix | SumitNaiksatam: +1 s3wong: not quite | 18:27 |
| regXboi | so... I'm still worried about this case | 18:27 |
| cgoncalves | s3wong: I'd not be against not using traffic steering. I think although both works could have some relation, it is not explicit | 18:27 |
| regXboi | [[p1, p2, p3], [p2, p4], [p3, p4]] | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: again not quite | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: yeah | 18:27 |
| s3wong | banix: it uses service chains on 'redirect' | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: are you planning another update? | 18:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | to the spec? | 18:27 |
| cathy_ | "redirect chain-ID" to specify a service chain | 18:28 |
| pgpus | we call it steering but its conceptually similar, function is more important than name I would say | 18:28 |
| s3wong | banix: but if we wrap services into a EPG, then the provider-consumer relationship effectively gives us a service chain | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i guess you need to know from us as to which option to go with | 18:28 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: not until we get a consensus on what would be the new approach | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: ok | 18:28 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:28 | |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: that was why I created that doc to present our views and get yours too | 18:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action for all, please respond to cgoncalves thread by end of tomorrow | 18:28 |
| s3wong | SumitNaiksatam: sure | 18:28 |
| cathy_ | then there is a need for definition of the "chain" which I think the "traffic steering" API can provide. I have given a suggestion on how to provide that in my comment | 18:28 |
| regXboi | cgoncalves: I'm still stuck on the above case, and none of these options appear to nicely cover it | 18:28 |
| LouisF | cgoncalves: there was discussion on a unfied classifier that incorperates the GBP classifier and the TS classifier? | 18:28 |
| banix | s3wong: we’ll talk more | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action cgoncalves to post a new patch set for review by friday (once he gets enough responses), will close the option choice on emails | 18:29 |
| cgoncalves | LouisF: not yet. we could discuss that later? | 18:29 |
| LouisF | k | 18:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: you wanted to make a pointe earlier? | 18:29 |
| s3wong | banix: sure :-) GBP as chain won't happen in Juno anyway :-) | 18:29 |
| cgoncalves | regXboi: sorry, what's your concerns on [[p1, p2, p3], [p2, p4], [p3, p4]] | 18:29 |
| regXboi | cgoncalves: how to avoid two copies of the packet at p1 appearing at p4 | 18:30 |
| cgoncalves | regXboi: packets at p4 could differ | 18:31 |
| pgpus | well that is loop avoidance in graph and we can consider that options later | 18:31 |
| cgoncalves | regXboi: but can also be the same, yes | 18:31 |
| banix | regXboi: that’s up to the function in p2 and p3 i wpould think | 18:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: any chance that you can put this comment on the spec? | 18:31 |
| regXboi | banix: that I am uncomfortable with | 18:31 |
| *** prad_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:31 | |
| regXboi | SumitNaiksatam: already there | 18:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | regXboi: ah good, sorry i did not notice | 18:31 |
| cgoncalves | regXboi: I'm afraid I don't know how to answer that question precisely as of now | 18:31 |
| regXboi | worse, in the case of multi-armed things, the graph won't help | 18:31 |
| regXboi | which is also on the comment chain | 18:32 |
| cgoncalves | banix: that too, or to the admin to configure it properly | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: you can probably take this offline with regXboi | 18:32 |
| cgoncalves | "it's always user's fault!" :) | 18:32 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: sure | 18:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | sorry folks we are over time | 18:32 |
| banix | so traffic steering says traffic coming out of p2 with specified classifier needs to be forwarded to p4.... | 18:32 |
| banix | s3wong: Going to the vicotry parade for Spurs? | 18:32 |
| s3wong | banix: I think it is happening right now | 18:33 |
| s3wong | banix: in downtown | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | again my apologies to all others whose agenda item did not come up for discussion | 18:33 |
| cgoncalves | banix: yes | 18:33 |
| vinay_yadhav | 2 mins for taas :) | 18:33 |
| s3wong | banix: but I am stuck in Rackspace office :-) | 18:33 |
| pgpus | Any way actions like forwarding, reversing, mirroring, redirecting can have constraints to the actions to get over this | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | vinay_yadhav: i am afraid the fwaas folks are not going to like it | 18:33 |
| vinay_yadhav | cool :) | 18:33 |
| s3wong | vinay_yadhav: do you have something you want to update? | 18:33 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: we probably should extend adv service meetings time or break it into multi meetings, no? | 18:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets go -dev for the pending discussions | 18:34 |
| vinay_yadhav | the review comments from marios will be answered | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: this was discussed before | 18:34 |
| *** terryw has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:34 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | cgoncalves: lets bring it up next time | 18:34 |
| cgoncalves | pgpus: I will get a better looking at your proposal and discuss it with you. thanks | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action discuss meeting length options in next meeting | 18:34 |
| cgoncalves | SumitNaiksatam: sure | 18:34 |
| banix | -dev means mailing list? | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | banix: yeah | 18:34 |
| banix | sounds good | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | alright thanks all for joining | 18:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | please please review the specs | 18:35 |
| *** tmc3inphilly has quit IRC | 18:35 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #endmeeting | 18:35 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 18:35 | |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Jun 18 18:35:06 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 18:35 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-06-18-17.31.html | 18:35 |
| s3wong | thanks, guys! | 18:35 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-06-18-17.31.txt | 18:35 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_advanced_services/2014/networking_advanced_services.2014-06-18-17.31.log.html | 18:35 |
| pgpus | sure we can exchange emails and I am still trying to understand how to comment online , so pardon for that | 18:35 |
| vinay_yadhav | bye! | 18:35 |
| *** cathy_ has quit IRC | 18:35 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 18:35 | |
| *** anil_rao has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:35 | |
| *** natarajk has quit IRC | 18:35 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK garyduan yisun: ping | 18:35 |
| SridarK | Hi All | 18:36 |
| *** OSM has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:36 | |
| beyounn | ya | 18:36 |
| cgoncalves | pgpus: add comments (select some text and insert a comment) or post your inputs to the bottom of the doc and identify yourself :-) | 18:36 |
| garyduan | Hi | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets get started | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #startmeeting Networking FWaaS | 18:36 |
| openstack | Meeting started Wed Jun 18 18:36:35 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. | 18:36 |
| openstack | Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. | 18:36 |
| *** openstack changes topic to " (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 18:36 | |
| openstack | The meeting name has been set to 'networking_fwaas' | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/FWaaS | 18:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic bugs | 18:36 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "bugs (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 18:36 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #undo | 18:37 |
| openstack | Removing item from minutes: <ircmeeting.items.Topic object at 0x2690910> | 18:37 |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:37 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic Action item review | 18:37 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "Action item review (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 18:37 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i basically copy pasted the action items from last weeks meeting | 18:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/FWaaS#Action_items_from_previous_meeting | 18:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | do we need to discuss any of them first? | 18:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think we accomplised some of them | 18:38 |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 18:38 | |
| SridarK | i have updated the plan with some vendor stuff as well | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: perhaps you can do the DVR udpate as a separate agenda item | 18:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: sure, thanks | 18:39 |
| SridarK | and talked to Rajesh as i mentioned in email | 18:40 |
| beyounn | Same here | 18:40 |
| SridarK | so we may need to plan for prad's requirements | 18:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: you mean you updated the wiki page? | 18:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yeah, lets discuss that as a separate item, thanks for the follow up with rajesh | 18:41 |
| beyounn | Sumit: right, for the DVR, there are no progress in past two or three weeks | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: ok | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: your plan was to send an email to the -dev mailer? | 18:41 |
| beyounn | Sumit: it is mainly be cause I'm too busy to follow it up | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: just for the record | 18:41 |
| beyounn | Sumit: I will kick out the email to ML | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: i can totally understand | 18:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: nice, at least that way it will be on whoever’s radar | 18:41 |
| *** regXboi has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:42 | |
| beyounn | Sumit: right | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action beyounn to send DVR issues related to -dev mailer | 18:42 |
| beyounn | Sumit: I will try to do it this evening | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: thanks much | 18:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic bugs | 18:42 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "bugs (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 18:42 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | so our bug count is increasing: #link | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack/+bugs?field.searchtext=fwaas&search=Search&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&field.status%3Alist=TRIAGED&field.status%3Alist=INPROGRESS&field.status%3Alist=FIXCOMMITTED&field.assignee=&field.bug_reporter=&field.omit_dupes=on&field.has_patch=&field.has_no_package | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and we have quite a few untriaged bugs | 18:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i had the action item to triage them but has not happened | 18:43 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 18:43 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i brought this one up in the neutron IRC meeting: #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90575/ | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | since it has a -2 from markmcclain | 18:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in parallel we also need to reach out to the owner of this patch | 18:45 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes good - i was out on Mon and could not make the mtg | 18:45 |
| mestery | SumitNaiksatam: ack (sorry, had to step out for a phone call) | 18:45 |
| SridarK | i think the comments there are valid - not sure if this is the approach on the fix | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yes, i brought up two things, this bug, and beyounn’s service objects spec | 18:45 |
| SumitNaiksatam | does anyone know the owner of this patch? | 18:45 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: seems to be enovance - i can also send an email | 18:46 |
| *** rkukura has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:46 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: okay that will be good if you can follow up | 18:46 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: will do | 18:46 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action SridarK will follow up with owner of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/90575/ | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | does anyone else want to pitch in with triaging the New and Undecided bugs in the link above? | 18:47 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: i can take a shot | 18:47 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: great, thanks again | 18:48 |
| *** yamamoto has quit IRC | 18:48 | |
| *** devlaps has quit IRC | 18:48 | |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: will be a bit slow next 2 days though | 18:48 |
| *** Kanzhe has quit IRC | 18:48 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action SridarK SumitNaiksatam to triage new/undecided bugs in the next couple of days | 18:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: oops said that too soon, np | 18:49 |
| *** vinay_yadhav has quit IRC | 18:49 | |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: no worries need to wrap on vendor bp - but should be done soon | 18:49 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think you all already chimed in on #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99956/ | 18:50 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i have not seen an update to that patch | 18:50 |
| SridarK | yes i am not sure this is the right approach as u have also mentioned | 18:50 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:51 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: ping | 18:51 |
| jlibosva | SumitNaiksatam: hi | 18:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: hi, we wanted to check with you on #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99956/ | 18:51 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: the fwaas team has commented | 18:52 |
| *** igordcard has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:52 | |
| jlibosva | SumitNaiksatam: yeah, I was about to ask what will be the correct approach | 18:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: this needs to be handled on the agent side | 18:52 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i think SridarK put a more specific comment to that effect | 18:52 |
| jlibosva | SumitNaiksatam: so l3 agent will contact neutron-server and that will set different status of FW or fail the creation? | 18:53 |
| SridarK | jlibosva: yes and it is handled when a new router is added | 18:53 |
| *** mike-grima has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:53 | |
| SridarK | jlibosva: no it will not fail the creation - will be in PENDING | 18:53 |
| jlibosva | SridarK: but that's confusing for user | 18:54 |
| SridarK | and when router is added will go to ACTIVE | 18:54 |
| jlibosva | aha | 18:54 |
| jlibosva | but I still think it would be nice to let user know that he needs to have a router | 18:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: yeah, those are already handled | 18:55 |
| SridarK | jlibosva: i agree that it is confusing but as we move to the insertion model - we will get away from this | 18:55 |
| *** Kanzhe has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 18:55 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: yes, as SridarK mentions this is more an issue with not beig able to provide a service insertion context | 18:55 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: so by default we try to apply the firewall on all the routers | 18:56 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: or any routers that will be created later | 18:56 |
| jlibosva | SumitNaiksatam: should I understand it that nothing can be done at this point until the service insertion bp is ready? | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: what we have currently is working as designed | 18:57 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: thats as much as we can do without the service insertion | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: the notion of the pending state is used in other services too | 18:58 |
| jlibosva | SumitNaiksatam: got it, thanks | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: so i believe the user should be familiar with this | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | jlibosva: if the documentation is not clear, i think we should definitely address it | 18:58 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in general, i think the issue when the router or interface is deleted in probably not being handled | 18:59 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: can you confirm | 18:59 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 18:59 |
| SridarK | and again we will probab rework those areas with serv insertion | 19:00 |
| SridarK | jlibosva: i believe there is a log msg on the agent side to this effect | 19:00 |
| jlibosva | ok, thanks for the help | 19:01 |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: but i beleive we need to set the status to pending, if all the routers go away, right? | 19:01 |
| SridarK | jlibosva: let me point that out - perhaps if it is not sufficient - we can improve it but we cannot really do much on the plugin side | 19:01 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: i believe so | 19:01 |
| *** TravT has quit IRC | 19:01 | |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: i will double check that to be sure - | 19:02 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: i think there is a bug to that effect | 19:02 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: the router going away had an issue to deal with it - will need to refresh my memory - at that point we discussed this - just don't recall exactly now | 19:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ah ok | 19:03 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action SridarK to revisit discussion on router delete | 19:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i am also waiting for the owner of #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1323299 to post a patch | 19:04 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: the all routers makes it difficult to enforce any foreign key type constraints on delete of routers | 19:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ok | 19:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | does any one else want to take a crack at the above issue? | 19:04 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan beyounn: is Vishnu around? | 19:05 |
| badveli | yes | 19:05 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: on that bug there was a response on the ML | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | badveli: hi | 19:05 |
| badveli | hello sumit | 19:05 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: which one? | 19:05 |
| *** prasadv has quit IRC | 19:05 | |
| SridarK | and according to Rajesh - not sure if we can do anything on this (132399) Floating ip | 19:05 |
| *** prasadv has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:06 | |
| garyduan | typically, firewall should be applied before dnat | 19:07 |
| garyduan | Did Rajesh say if it can be done or not? | 19:07 |
| SridarK | garyduan: i think he mentioned cannot | 19:08 |
| *** mrunge has quit IRC | 19:08 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan badveli: do you want to explore the feasibility of that one? | 19:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | actually this is working as designed | 19:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we did not intend to support this | 19:08 |
| SumitNaiksatam | at least in the first iteration | 19:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | now we need to explore if we can | 19:09 |
| SridarK | From Rajesh: "The chain we install will only see private addresses. So, one needs to use internal IP address in that rule. " | 19:09 |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 19:09 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yes, because i believe the ip address is not dnated already when we apply the firewall | 19:09 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: true | 19:09 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: so we never see the floating up | 19:10 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *ip | 19:10 |
| *** jlibosva has quit IRC | 19:10 | |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes we are always on fixed ip | 19:10 |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:10 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | okay so no one wants to look at this | 19:11 |
| SridarK | garyduan: badveli - will add u to the email that Rajesh sent | 19:11 |
| *** pgpus has quit IRC | 19:11 | |
| *** LouisF has quit IRC | 19:11 | |
| garyduan | SumitNaiksatam: we can look at it together with service group backend | 19:11 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i suspect that some of the undecided bugs might turn out to be higher priority | 19:11 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: ok | 19:11 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so we need to triage them at the earliest | 19:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic blueprint tracking | 19:12 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "blueprint tracking (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 19:12 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | so regarding service objects | 19:12 |
| SumitNaiksatam | unforntunately i was not able to follow up with the team on this, and my apologies | 19:13 |
| *** terryw has quit IRC | 19:13 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | has any more discussion happened on this since the last meeting? | 19:13 |
| beyounn | Sumit: thanks for the comments | 19:13 |
| badveli | beyounn and myslef send an email clarifying | 19:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | badveli and beyounn: i know you guys had posted emails | 19:13 |
| SumitNaiksatam | badveli: yes | 19:13 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:14 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | i will try and respond to that the earliest, again apologies | 19:14 |
| beyounn | Sumit: for your comments, how about I add icmp support to rule as well? | 19:14 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: yeah my point was that we might need to add icmp support regardless of service objects | 19:15 |
| beyounn | Sumit:agree | 19:15 |
| beyounn | Sumit: only one questions-- is it ok to overload source/dest ports for code/type? | 19:15 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: you ask because security groups does it? | 19:16 |
| beyounn | Sumit: right | 19:16 |
| beyounn | I don't really want to do it that way | 19:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: i did not quite understand why they did it that way | 19:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: yeah | 19:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: its not intuitive to me at all | 19:16 |
| beyounn | Sumit, ok, I will propose the new attributes in firewall rule | 19:16 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: ok sounds good, what do others think? | 19:16 |
| SridarK | This is good - std ACL type definition ? | 19:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ok | 19:17 |
| beyounn | --protocol icmp --icmp-type 1 -icmp-code 1 | 19:17 |
| beyounn | ok ? | 19:17 |
| SridarK | eys | 19:17 |
| SridarK | *yes | 19:17 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: that sounds very intuitive to me | 19:17 |
| *** julim has quit IRC | 19:18 | |
| beyounn | And it is consistent with service object as well | 19:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: ok | 19:18 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: should this go as a separate BP ? | 19:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ah good point | 19:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: i was thinking when i was putting that comment | 19:18 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ideally yes | 19:19 |
| SridarK | sigh i hope the answer is No :-) | 19:19 |
| SridarK | I was afraid that u would say yes :-) | 19:19 |
| SumitNaiksatam | well if i dont, someone else will | 19:19 |
| beyounn | Is a separated BP really necessary? | 19:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | this should be a straighforward one though to review as a spec | 19:20 |
| SridarK | True that is the right way as this has nothing to do with serv obj | 19:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: ok lets think a little more | 19:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: as SridarK said | 19:20 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn SridarK: i am definitely not in favor of creating more work than required | 19:20 |
| *** jackib1 has quit IRC | 19:21 | |
| SridarK | should i file a bug that icmp is broken on firewalls ? :-) | 19:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and would hope to cut the process as much as possible | 19:21 |
| beyounn | Sridark +1 | 19:21 |
| beyounn | And I can take the bug | 19:21 |
| beyounn | :-) | 19:21 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so while on that, have you seen this #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronJunoProjectPlan | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | neutron juno plan ^^^ | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | this does not have fwaas at all | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | so i have reached out to the PTL | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i believe that is an oversight | 19:22 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and i would be sending him the items which need to be listed | 19:22 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes | 19:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | that said, you can see that the number of items mentioned for the other services are minimal | 19:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | and so we cannot give a laundry list either | 19:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we have to decide what is it that is absolute top priority for us, and for which we would want to get a committment from the PTL to get on the roadmap for Juno | 19:23 |
| garyduan | hopefully, we get flavor settled | 19:23 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: just saying that | 19:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan: thanks, so thats a given | 19:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | is prad_ around? | 19:24 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: perhaps we can do some discussions offline and try to come up with a list | 19:24 |
| prad_ | SumitNaiksatam, hi | 19:24 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: i am fine with that | 19:24 |
| *** jaypipes has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:24 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: but realistically i think its going to be one more item that we can push for | 19:24 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: ok | 19:25 |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 19:25 | |
| beyounn | Do we need a F2F meeting? | 19:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: so you are tracking the fwaas requirements on the ceilometer side | 19:25 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: sure, we can | 19:25 |
| prad_ | SumitNaiksatam, yea, we need clarity on Fwaas side what the plan is | 19:25 |
| prad_ | SumitNaiksatam, so based on SridarK's email, Rajesh might not be able to add the hit count support? | 19:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: i was expecting a blueprint spec on the fwaas side as well for the missing functionality | 19:26 |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:26 | |
| *** jamiehannaford has quit IRC | 19:26 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: are you okay if that cannot be added in Juno? | 19:26 |
| prad_ | SumitNaiksatam, i'm not familiar with fwaas side of the code to write a reasonable spec | 19:26 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: if not i was going to scout for more resources on this | 19:26 |
| prad_ | SumitNaiksatam, ideally if we can get it in for juno that would be helpful.. but if you're saying we don't have resources then I guess we have no choice but to punt? | 19:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i was actually going to check with badveli if he was interested in taking this up (without knowing at all as to how full your plate is) | 19:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | badveli: this might be a good place to get your hands really dirty in fwaas | 19:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | assuming you have time | 19:27 |
| beyounn | Sumit: Let me and Vashul work out on time first | 19:27 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: sure | 19:28 |
| *** terryw has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:28 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | if not, and no one else is willing to take this up, then we cannot do hit counts in Juno | 19:28 |
| beyounn | Sumit, how about we get the list and then we can work out the resource? | 19:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i would have really liked to have this since it satisfies the ceilometer requirements | 19:28 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: we already have the list | 19:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/FWaaS/JunoPlan | 19:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but not all of the above will make it to the list that we send to the PTL | 19:29 |
| beyounn | Sumit, that is what I was talking about | 19:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in fact my guess is that we can only have one more item in addition to flavors | 19:29 |
| SumitNaiksatam | that means that everything else is best effort | 19:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | however, in my opinion satisfying ceilometer requriements is critical for the adoption of fwaas | 19:30 |
| beyounn | Sumit, not even the service insertion? | 19:30 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: and we will need to work out dependency on flavor, insertion | 19:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: service insertion, yes | 19:30 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: but i am thinking that as a part of the adv services work | 19:30 |
| s3wong | SridarK: beyounn: I will work with you guys on service insertion framework migration | 19:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: so i am not counting that here, its cross list there | 19:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: awesome, thanks | 19:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | s3wong: dont leave me out :-P | 19:31 |
| SridarK | s3wong: knight in shining armor ;-) | 19:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: lol | 19:31 |
| beyounn | Sumit, since we have the service group BP and Code out there already, I think it could be a shorter path | 19:31 |
| SumitNaiksatam | guarding the alamo! :-P | 19:31 |
| s3wong | SridarK: beyounn: SumitNaiksatam: in fact, FWaaS will be the first one we will do - since LBaaS new object model will be around J-2 | 19:31 |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 19:32 | |
| SridarK | while he is in a lbaas mtg :-) | 19:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: sure, lets discuss as you guys suggested | 19:32 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action beyounn badveli to decide if they can look at hit counts | 19:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | in general we need to develop some expertize in the team on the iptables driver side | 19:33 |
| beyounn | Sumit: also, if we can get the service group cleaned up, we may be able to get new resource on the next thing | 19:33 |
| SumitNaiksatam | to complement Rajesh | 19:33 |
| SridarK | Rajesh said he could be available a bit later on - timing now is critical | 19:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | hence i was looking for volunteers (and suggested badveli’s name) | 19:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yeah, juno 2 is critical | 19:34 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: yes agreed | 19:34 |
| SumitNaiksatam | garyduan beyounn: are you guys comfortable with the iptables driver? | 19:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we need someone whenever Rajesh does not have time to look at it | 19:35 |
| SumitNaiksatam | lets take this offline | 19:35 |
| beyounn | Does everyone available next week? | 19:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | my question is for everyone in the team in fact | 19:36 |
| *** tmc3inphilly has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:36 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: i am | 19:36 |
| *** tmc3inphilly has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:36 | |
| SridarK | yes me too | 19:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #action SumitNaiksatam to start email thread for meeting | 19:36 |
| garyduan | yes | 19:36 |
| beyounn | How about we do a F2F next week to close it? | 19:36 |
| SumitNaiksatam | but next week is too late | 19:36 |
| beyounn | Friday? | 19:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we need to send list to PTL at the earliest | 19:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | friday afternoon is good | 19:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok lets decide offline | 19:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | we are over time | 19:37 |
| SridarK | ok | 19:37 |
| beyounn | ok | 19:37 |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:37 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: the first step for getting the hit counts is to have the bp spec | 19:37 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: if we cant find a resource to do that, we are stuch | 19:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | *stuck | 19:38 |
| prad_ | SumitNaiksatam, hmm understand | 19:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i could have, but i cannot commit, so i dont want to put my hand up | 19:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: can you at least make some progress with what is already there? | 19:38 |
| prad_ | SumitNaiksatam, my plate is a bit too full for juno2, otherwise i would have volunteered | 19:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: otherwise we have a serious issue | 19:38 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: totally understand | 19:39 |
| SridarK | prad_: other than hit counts u can do lifecyle metrics ? | 19:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | the fwaas team would really like to see the ceilometer integration, so thanks prad_ for taking this up | 19:39 |
| prad_ | SumitNaiksatam, yea i already started looking into fw/rules and policy tracking | 19:39 |
| *** jamiehannaford has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:39 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: ok cool | 19:39 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: yes, thats what i meant to ask | 19:39 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: ok cool | 19:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: we can try and help you at least with that | 19:40 |
| prad_ | cool | 19:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | prad_: another way of saying, please bug SridarK :-P | 19:40 |
| SridarK | prad_: we can discuss for sure no worries :-) | 19:40 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i wont put that as an action item | 19:40 |
| prad_ | hehe ok | 19:40 |
| * SumitNaiksatam hides for cover before SridarK comes after me | 19:41 | |
| SumitNaiksatam | #topic open discussion | 19:41 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "open discussion (Meeting topic: Networking FWaaS)" | 19:41 | |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: SridarK would never do that :-) | 19:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: i know | 19:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | :-) | 19:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | did we miss anything important | 19:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i know we did not cover vendor BPs | 19:41 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: did you say you added one too? | 19:41 |
| SridarK | SumitNaiksatam: we can discuss offline on our stuff | 19:42 |
| beyounn | Sumit: no , i did not | 19:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | SridarK: ok | 19:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: ah ok, sorry got confused with some other comment | 19:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | ok what else? | 19:42 |
| beyounn | Sumit: I will leave the icmp part of you comment as under discussion | 19:42 |
| SumitNaiksatam | beyounn: ok | 19:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | i have an action item to respond to the email thread in general | 19:43 |
| beyounn | Ok, I will follow up with you then | 19:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | alright thanks everyone for your patience and participation | 19:43 |
| SumitNaiksatam | apologies again for starting late | 19:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | thanks for sticking around longer | 19:44 |
| badveli | thanks | 19:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | #endmeeting | 19:44 |
| *** openstack changes topic to "OpenStack Meetings || https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings" | 19:44 | |
| SridarK | Thanks all | 19:44 |
| openstack | Meeting ended Wed Jun 18 19:44:21 2014 UTC. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4) | 19:44 |
| openstack | Minutes: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-06-18-18.36.html | 19:44 |
| openstack | Minutes (text): http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-06-18-18.36.txt | 19:44 |
| SridarK | bye all | 19:44 |
| openstack | Log: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_fwaas/2014/networking_fwaas.2014-06-18-18.36.log.html | 19:44 |
| SumitNaiksatam | bye all | 19:44 |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 19:44 | |
| *** TravT has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:45 | |
| *** jtomasek has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:46 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 19:48 | |
| *** rm_work is now known as rm_work|away | 19:51 | |
| *** julim has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 19:51 | |
| *** prasadv has quit IRC | 19:53 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:00 | |
| *** sarob has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:03 | |
| *** terryw has quit IRC | 20:04 | |
| *** jackib has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:05 | |
| *** sarob has quit IRC | 20:10 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 20:11 | |
| *** jaypipes has quit IRC | 20:15 | |
| *** pcm_ has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:21 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:24 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:24 | |
| *** nelsnelson has quit IRC | 20:28 | |
| *** safchain has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:29 | |
| *** nlahouti has quit IRC | 20:29 | |
| *** julim has quit IRC | 20:34 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 20:35 | |
| *** lcheng has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:37 | |
| *** nlahouti has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:43 | |
| *** nlahouti has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:45 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 20:49 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:00 | |
| *** crobertsrh has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:07 | |
| *** lblanchard has quit IRC | 21:07 | |
| *** pballand has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:09 | |
| *** jtomasek has quit IRC | 21:16 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 21:18 | |
| *** yamahata has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:18 | |
| *** devlaps has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:20 | |
| *** mfer has quit IRC | 21:27 | |
| *** safchain has quit IRC | 21:29 | |
| *** pballand has quit IRC | 21:35 | |
| *** jamiehannaford has quit IRC | 21:37 | |
| *** peristeri has quit IRC | 21:45 | |
| *** asahlin_ has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 21:47 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 21:48 | |
| *** asahlin_ has quit IRC | 22:01 | |
| *** seizadi has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:04 | |
| *** Sukhdev has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:06 | |
| *** MaxV has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:15 | |
| *** rm_work|away is now known as rm_work | 22:24 | |
| *** chuckC has quit IRC | 22:26 | |
| *** badveli has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| *** yamahata has quit IRC | 22:28 | |
| *** seizadi1 has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:30 | |
| *** seizadi has quit IRC | 22:31 | |
| *** armax has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:31 | |
| *** banix has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:41 | |
| *** MaxV has quit IRC | 22:43 | |
| *** stratuspaulg has left #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:44 | |
| *** jackib has quit IRC | 22:44 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 22:45 | |
| *** mwagner_lap has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:47 | |
| *** chuckC has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 22:49 | |
| *** rm_work is now known as rm_work|away | 22:50 | |
| *** mestery has quit IRC | 22:51 | |
| *** s3wong has quit IRC | 22:52 | |
| *** markmcclain has quit IRC | 22:56 | |
| *** banix has quit IRC | 23:01 | |
| *** sbalukoff has quit IRC | 23:02 | |
| *** igordcard has quit IRC | 23:03 | |
| *** ttrifonov is now known as ttrifonov_zZzz | 23:11 | |
| *** lcheng has quit IRC | 23:16 | |
| *** prad_ has quit IRC | 23:20 | |
| *** mordred has quit IRC | 23:24 | |
| *** mordred has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:27 | |
| *** mordred has quit IRC | 23:30 | |
| *** mordred has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:30 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has joined #openstack-meeting-3 | 23:35 | |
| *** otherwiseguy has quit IRC | 23:53 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.14.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!