13:00:36 <mhen> #startmeeting image_encryption 13:00:37 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Aug 12 13:00:36 2019 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mhen. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 13:00:38 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 13:00:40 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'image_encryption' 13:00:48 <mhen> #topic Roll Call 13:01:09 <rosmaita> o/ 13:03:15 <rosmaita> hmmm ... looks like a light turnout 13:03:26 <redrobot> \o 13:04:04 * mhen is substitute for Luzi this and next week 13:05:16 <mhen> okay let's start 13:05:24 <mhen> #topic Barbican Consumer API Update 13:05:57 <mhen> anybody present who can comment on the progress of this? 13:06:06 <redrobot> I think moguimar is out on PTO today 13:06:15 <redrobot> He's got a WIP patch up for review, let me find a link 13:06:36 <redrobot> #link https://review.opendev.org/#/c/674302/ 13:06:57 <redrobot> He should be picking it up again tomorrow when he returns to work. 13:07:27 <mhen> good! 13:09:14 <mhen> anything else about the consumer API? 13:09:33 * efried waves late 13:09:44 <mhen> efried, welcome :) 13:10:18 <redrobot> That's all I have for now. I haven't started working on the client side of things, but it's on my to-do list 13:10:49 <mhen> okay, good to hear ;) 13:10:57 <mhen> next 13:10:59 <mhen> #topic Image Encryption Specs 13:12:28 <mhen> just as a heads-up, response time from our side will be slowed down over the next two weeks since Luzi is on vacation 13:13:37 <mhen> any topics to discuss regarding the specs? 13:14:23 <efried> I'm afraid the nova spec didn't get a freeze exception 13:14:54 <efried> but I would encourage you to continue working on it to get it in shape to be approved early in U. 13:15:01 <mhen> yes but it was a reasonable decision I think 13:15:09 <efried> and that doesn't stop you working on the code as well. 13:15:40 <mhen> right, we will continue to push the things forward :) 13:16:50 <mhen> iirc, there are currently some questions still to be answered regarding the scope of our changes in regards to which hypervisor and backends will be supported etc. 13:17:38 <mhen> we will work on better clarifying this in the specs 13:18:50 * mhen still needs to check all the specs again which questions are still unanswered 13:19:31 <mhen> anything else concerning the specs? 13:20:35 <mhen> okay then 13:20:38 <mhen> #topic Open Discussion 13:21:02 <mhen> any other topic you'd like to discuss? 13:21:11 <rosmaita> just a reminder that the os-brick Train release is week of 2 September 13:22:24 <mhen> since we are targeting early U now, is this deadline relevant in any way? 13:23:34 <rosmaita> guess not, though it would be good to have your brick work at a state where it will be useful for testing the other components 13:25:16 <rosmaita> but the other implication is that after 2 Sept, master of brick will be U 13:25:33 <mhen> so our brick stuff would need to be merged first I guess? 13:25:41 <efried> is os-brick on an _independent release cycle? 13:25:59 <rosmaita> efried: no, it's a cycle with intermediaries, i think 13:26:12 <efried> confirmed 13:27:01 <efried> Was going to say you could consider merging & releasing the os-brick function any time, assuming it's code paths that wouldn't get touched without the upcoming features. 13:27:11 <efried> might still be able to do that 13:27:24 <rosmaita> mhen: it's up to you when stuff merges and where; it's just that people will have to carry patched versions of stuff to work on other stuff ... can get complicated 13:28:45 <rosmaita> i agree with efried that if the code changes are isolated, it's possible to do early releases from master 13:29:25 <efried> especially with something as intertwined as this, trying to have a zillion Depends-On patches from a zillion different repositories is going to be complicated enough. Might as well simplify where you can. 13:29:52 <mhen> sounds reasonable :) 13:30:29 <mhen> we don't need a separate spec for the brick changes or do we? 13:30:53 <rosmaita> i don't think so, the cinder team seemed OK with an update to the accepted spec 13:30:54 <efried> who owns brick? cinder? It would be up to them 13:31:30 <rosmaita> Luzi said the oslo library proposal could be adapted to say what the interface would look like 13:31:36 <rosmaita> that's really all that 13:31:57 <rosmaita> 's needed, just some idea of what thsi will look like for the people who currently consume os-brick 13:32:39 <rosmaita> from what i can tell, the cinder team is in agreement that os-brick is appropriate place for this 13:34:20 <mhen> I see, I vaguely remember Luzi mentioning there was some request from the cinder team to supply some further addition to the merged spec 13:35:24 <rosmaita> Yeah, the current spec says the encryption code would be in a library like os-brick; just need to update that it will definitely be brick and what the interface will look like 13:37:25 <mhen> rosmaita, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I still need to catch up with all the parts :) 13:38:08 <rosmaita> np, i guess my point is that you don't have to wait for U to start to get working on the os-brick stuff 13:41:46 <mhen> okay thanks for pointing that out? 13:42:21 <mhen> that wasn't meant to be an '?' :) 13:42:30 <rosmaita> :D 13:42:42 <mhen> okay anything else? 13:44:51 <mhen> okay thanks for participating! 13:45:14 <mhen> have a nice week! 13:45:16 <mhen> #endmeeting image_encryption