16:04:40 #startmeeting GSLB_Discussion 16:04:40 Meeting started Tue Jul 21 16:04:40 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is KunalGandhi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:04:42 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:04:44 The meeting name has been set to 'gslb_discussion' 16:05:05 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/201683/ 16:06:09 #chair.. @KunalGandhi 16:06:10 Warning: Nick not in channel: .. 16:06:11 Warning: Nick not in channel: @KunalGandhi 16:06:12 Current chairs: .. @KunalGandhi KunalGandhi 16:06:56 hi everyone.. can we do a roll call for this meeting.. 16:07:01 o/ 16:07:32 o/ 16:07:34 o/ 16:08:10 Hi 16:09:37 so we wanted to discuss if there is any thing to be added on the API doc 16:09:38 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nw5jVn0hjmhlhkZJAohx-gqRkkbVhMMJ79Pogd0ysEk/edit#heading=h.lcnfr8uk78d 16:10:18 @dougwig .. was going to internally discuss the API doc in the LBaaS mid cycle last week and get feedback. 16:10:33 there is also notes from last week - which have not been reflected in the doc yet 16:10:51 o/ 16:11:18 KunalGandhi dougwig was sick so no discussion 16:11:25 ok.. 16:11:34 didn 16:11:46 ’t know it was a topic otherwise would have driven it... 16:12:04 so what is the next step ? do we need to finalize the API for the MVP ? 16:12:52 we should turn the API into a spec 16:12:58 +1 16:13:08 ok, so that is on me to update the doc 16:13:17 #action mugsie update API Doc 16:13:40 also for the spec we probably need a git repo with a specs directory :-) 16:13:53 #link http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/gslb/2015/gslb.2015-07-14-16.00.log.html 16:14:02 so… somebody needs to file the infra request to set that up 16:14:02 has what we discussed last week 16:14:20 xgerman: we need to wait for the current project creation to pass first 16:14:34 agreed 16:15:07 so we need to get an update from @dougwig.. whether he was able to do that lask week 16:15:07 can we do it in github for now? 16:15:56 @sballe ... +! 16:15:58 +1 16:16:08 Yeah. 16:16:19 I will create a github org after this 16:16:26 i think we can start with github and then move the doc later to the github.. 16:16:31 @mugsie .. thanks.. 16:16:33 that should allow us to collaborate while waiting for the more official infra 16:16:49 i can follow up with @dougwig on the infra repo 16:17:20 +1 16:17:35 there must be something replacing stackforge 16:17:52 xgerman: there is - "experimental" projects 16:17:53 agreed 16:17:58 that is what dougwig filed for 16:18:14 #action KunalGandhi to follow up on infra repo 16:18:52 we are waiting for the "experiment project" spec in openstack-goverence to merge as well 16:19:19 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/192016/3 16:19:32 ok github sounds like a great idea until they figure out the experimental project stuff 16:19:39 +1 16:20:22 ok.. is there anything else that we would like to discuss about GSLB ? 16:20:29 @Kunal I have a small query .Are we targeting GSLB for liberty? What is expected schedule for GSLB 16:21:16 MVP for Liberty maybe? 16:21:21 but that is a short timescale 16:21:33 +1000 on the MVP for Liberty 16:21:41 @Santosh .. i think the feature freeze date is September 3.. so maybe an MVP. 16:21:49 KunalGandhi: we can be exempt for that 16:21:53 not sure 16:22:11 as the release management team wioll not be doing releases for us 16:22:12 experimental... 16:22:20 we can do whatever we want 16:22:33 so, we can release when ever / whatever 16:22:38 yep 16:22:54 though we should try to have a demo in Tokyo 16:23:05 @mugsie .. ok..i think it is too early.. we need yet need to discuss the technical details 16:23:07 +1 on the demo 16:23:17 +1 16:23:26 KunalGandhi: +1 on details not sure it is too early 16:23:49 demo 16:23:51 gah 16:23:57 demo is what we shoud be aiming for 16:24:01 I have couple of query wrt coupling vendor specific Neutron-Lbaas driver/LBs and Vendor specific GSLB. 16:24:02 +1 16:24:05 @sballe .. i meant to early to know whether we are ready for liberty 16:24:19 oh I see. I agree 16:24:20 Santosh: I would push back on that 16:24:30 we should be using the LBaaS V2 API 16:24:34 +1 16:24:41 +100 16:24:43 so, whatever is supported in that, we do 16:25:22 Santosh: what did you have in mind? 16:27:01 Currently with neutron-lbaas we have Vendor specific LB configuration 16:27:28 To my understanding the plugin drivers for GSLB and LBaaS would be different right.. since we do not need all entities that LBaaS has in GSLB 16:27:53 yeah. There should be vendor plugins for GSLB drivers 16:28:13 and they can drive LBs, but will have differing features 16:28:19 So GSLB should be aware of Type (vendor) and propagate relevant information? 16:28:36 Santosh: from the regional LBs? 16:28:41 Yes 16:29:47 unless it is in the LBaaS V2 API, I would say no 16:29:54 +1 16:30:06 Say For a Vendor specific orchestration Layer it should be passing corresponding LB info 16:30:28 I am not following 16:30:32 can you give an example? 16:30:39 so GSLB should go around LBaaS V2? 16:30:44 @Santosh .. this for GSLB to talk to regional LBs ? 16:31:49 Say for regional LB we have neutron-lbaas vendor specific LBs 16:32:10 ok.. 16:32:24 Santosh: what sort of information are you thinking should be passed, that is not in the LBaaS V2 API? 16:33:01 @Santosh .. Can you gives us a use case for which GSLB driver needs to talk to the regional LB's ? 16:33:07 and for GSLB vendor specific driver ,it should be able to select/pass from those LBs as regional LBs 16:33:20 ah, I get it 16:33:57 honestly, I would not like that personally. We would be breaking the "same API everywhere" goal of openstack 16:33:58 so some sort of scheduler? or selection mechanism to forward requests to the right type of LB? 16:34:19 I m just making sure I understand what @Santosh 16:34:21 is saying 16:35:47 they could be added as "TCP LB Type", i suppose. 16:36:41 Agree with mugsie , I will update the doc with use case 16:37:05 Santosh: great :) 16:37:06 @Santosh .. +1 a use case would definitely help 16:37:16 +1 16:37:26 +1 16:38:30 OK, anything else on the todo list? 16:38:47 When are we going ot discuss API? 16:39:17 as an FYI, me, dougwig, and KunalGandhi have put in a talk for tokyo 16:39:48 once we convert the current API doc into an API, we can discuss the API and finalize it for MVP 16:39:52 ah, sballe we can re discuss again, now... but there was a lot of discussion last week, and the doc does not have those updates 16:40:16 is there anything in particualr you want changed sballe ? 16:40:25 ok np. Like I said now that I have this meeting in my calendar I will show up every time 16:41:01 i think we are done for today then? 16:41:02 @mugsie no I will look it over again and reach out to you if I have nay questions 16:41:28 @mugsie .. yes.. 16:42:14 KunalGandhi: can you #endmeeting ? 16:42:23 (has to be the chair) 16:42:25 ok.. 16:42:26 bye. 16:42:29 #endmeeting