18:01:03 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:01:04 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Aug  6 18:01:03 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:05 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:01:08 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:01:28 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#Aug_6th.2C_2015
18:01:53 <SumitNaiksatam> for the past few weeks we have been deliberating as to what is a good time to release Kilo
18:02:10 <SumitNaiksatam> part of the reason in the delay has been that we have users testing this, and providing feedback
18:02:29 <SumitNaiksatam> and we want to make sure that those issues get addressed in the release
18:02:46 <SumitNaiksatam> but given all that, we have most of the things we need
18:03:22 <SumitNaiksatam> for what remains, we can get those committed in the next few days, and/or backport after the release is cut
18:03:42 <SumitNaiksatam> so with that, I would like to propose that we do the release on Aug 14th
18:04:00 <SumitNaiksatam> i already check with most of you, but if you do have concerns with this timeline please do let me know
18:04:16 <SumitNaiksatam> ideally, i will try to do a K-4 release sometime before that
18:04:36 <SumitNaiksatam> thoughts/questions/concerns?
18:05:15 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Is there a list of iterms to get in?
18:05:21 <ransari> SumitNaiksatam - Once Kilo is released, any backport needs to be to both Kilo and Juno
18:05:45 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: yes, depending on the severity of the issue
18:06:08 <SumitNaiksatam> we will be maintaining Juno and Kilo, while we develop on Liberty
18:06:23 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: good question
18:06:34 <SumitNaiksatam> lets discuss that
18:06:37 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Bugs
18:07:01 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Is my understanding correct that our master branch will continue to require kilo neutron for the short term at least?
18:07:28 <SumitNaiksatam> I am hoping to spend most of the time today on triangulating the list of items to fix before kilo release (as rkukura mentions)
18:07:33 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: correct
18:08:14 <ransari> @SumitNaiksatam- couple of bugs that need to get in are:  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197973/, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198639/, https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1479706, https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy-ui/+bug/1482325,
18:08:14 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1479706 in Group Based Policy "GBP Service chaining errors are are not vsible to the user because of not having status attribute" [Undecided,New]
18:08:14 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i am guessing that we will end following a similar process/timeline as to what we did in Kilo (hopefullly we will sync up sooner though)
18:08:15 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1482325 in Group Based Policy UI "Instances in ERROR state don't show in GBP Member list" [Critical,Confirmed] - Assigned to ank (ank.b)
18:08:17 <ransari> and   https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy-ui/+bug/1463928
18:08:17 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1463928 in Group Based Policy UI "External connectivity UI is missing" [Critical,Confirmed]
18:08:45 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: okay
18:09:16 <SumitNaiksatam> thats a handful!
18:09:38 <SumitNaiksatam> i seem to have completely missed: #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1479706
18:09:38 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1479706 in Group Based Policy "GBP Service chaining errors are are not vsible to the user because of not having status attribute" [Undecided,New]
18:10:01 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: What about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/179327/?
18:10:03 <SumitNaiksatam> oh sorry, i think we discussed this
18:10:46 <SumitNaiksatam> i mean we had discussed  #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1479706
18:10:46 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1479706 in Group Based Policy "GBP Service chaining errors are are not vsible to the user because of not having status attribute" [Undecided,New]
18:11:00 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: lets get to https://review.openstack.org/#/c/179327/ in a minute
18:11:12 <rkukura> ok
18:11:30 <SumitNaiksatam> regarding bug/1479706 i dont think we reached a conclusion
18:11:46 <SumitNaiksatam> but we didnt have magesh that day, is magesh around today?
18:12:07 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: yes, I am here :-
18:13:07 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: so my understanding is that we are going to spend some time in Liberty trying to design the asyn interface, while keeping both, sync and async, options available to the user
18:13:36 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: do you have a short term proposal in mind, that we can later evolve towards the above goal (in the context of the bug you have raised)?
18:14:05 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: Right, we do need a proper interface to handle the resource status
18:15:10 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I actually meant https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1432816, which also has schema changes.
18:15:10 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1432816 in Group Based Policy "inconsistent template ownership during chain creation" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Ivar Lazzaro (mmaleckk)
18:15:34 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: Not having the status impacts the visibility of the errors for the user.  I am yet to to work out the details for a short term solution though.
18:15:41 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: ransari: to confirm, your users needs a fix for this in Kilo, right? (and backported to Juno)
18:15:59 <ransari> yes,
18:16:04 <SumitNaiksatam> okay
18:16:14 <ransari> it impacts the usability fro production deployments
18:16:23 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: okay
18:17:00 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: rkukura: can we set aside about 30 minutes Friday morning (US time) to meet in #openstack-gbp and work out a shorter term solution?
18:17:23 <SumitNaiksatam> of course everyone else in the team, who can, should also join
18:17:51 <ransari> ok
18:17:56 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: I will not be available on Friday morning US time. I will be travelling
18:18:04 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: ah bummer
18:18:10 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I think so. I don’t see a big problem defining a status attribute for our immediate needs, and adding more values later as things become more asynchronous, provided we don’t break clients.
18:18:11 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: are you available after this meeting?
18:18:33 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: okey, Lets discuss after this meeting
18:18:35 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i agree
18:18:45 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: great
18:18:59 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura and others hopefully you can stick around a bit longer as well
18:19:09 <ransari> yes
18:19:11 <SumitNaiksatam> so i am just going in the order in which items were posted
18:19:44 <SumitNaiksatam> so #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197973
18:19:56 <SumitNaiksatam> “Fix Servicechain Instance update and spec update"
18:20:07 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: does your objection still stand for this patch?
18:20:30 <ivar-lazzaro> looking
18:21:08 <ivar-lazzaro> ok now I remember this patch
18:21:31 <ivar-lazzaro> I think we had a discussion about finding a common way to handle internal object changes
18:22:06 <ivar-lazzaro> Today we only do it for new PTs in PTGs, we basically added a hook to the NCP that the RMD can call
18:22:53 <ivar-lazzaro> This doesn't scale very well, but I think we can use this method for now until we find a better way
18:23:02 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: yes i recall we had the discussion
18:23:08 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay
18:23:16 <ivar-lazzaro> it's clearer than calling a "blind" SCI update
18:23:28 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: can you please respond to ivar-lazzaro’s comment and update accordingly?
18:23:29 <ivar-lazzaro> and finding out later what is going on
18:23:31 <ivar-lazzaro> (IMHO)
18:24:06 <SumitNaiksatam> next one which ransari posted - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198639/
18:24:17 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam,ivar-lazzaro : okay, So the idea is to have another method with similar functionality as update SCI, is that correct ?
18:24:44 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: i agree with ivar-lazzaro that we should make it consistent with existing approach
18:25:21 <SumitNaiksatam> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198639/ - Gracefully handle parameter updates that affects Service Chain
18:25:32 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:26:07 <SumitNaiksatam> anyone have objections to the above patch/approach ^^^
18:26:36 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: we dont need a schema update for this?
18:26:45 <SumitNaiksatam> oh probably not
18:26:51 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: No, there is no db updates here
18:27:15 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: and the claim is that this is backward compatible?
18:27:48 <SumitNaiksatam> because we are going from more restrictive to less restrictive
18:27:59 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: Yes, there is an api update for making classifier ID in SCI an updatable field though
18:28:19 <magesh> the rest are just internal workflow changes
18:28:49 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: so are we using the classifier ID today in the service chain heat driver?
18:29:22 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: Yes, In the heat driver we are using it to derive the firewall rule
18:29:38 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: ah okay, for the firewall rules
18:30:08 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: however i dont see in our patch that the heat driver is getting updated?
18:30:40 <SumitNaiksatam> i am trying to understand what is being done with the update in your patch
18:30:45 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: The update scenario is already handled in the heat node driver, although that code is not exercised today
18:30:58 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: ah okay, i missed that
18:31:08 <magesh> Right now, we delete the chain and recreate it for any updates
18:31:35 <SumitNaiksatam> alright, assuming ivar-lazzaro, rkukura you got a chance to look at this patch, do you foresee any issues with allowing this update?
18:31:36 <magesh> This patch tries to avoid that as much as possible (may be a Policy Rule, PRS, PTG or Classifier updates)
18:32:15 <ransari> right, its not just a classifier update
18:32:46 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: sounds reasonable to me
18:32:54 <SumitNaiksatam> and the driver can reject the update?
18:32:59 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I haven’t looked closely enough yet to have an opinion
18:33:06 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:33:26 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: yes, a driver can reject the update in validate method itself
18:33:35 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: any objections?
18:34:48 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro is probably reviewing in real time ;-)
18:35:08 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: multitasking a lot atm ;)
18:35:24 <ivar-lazzaro> I'll review asap, no objections in the concept so far
18:35:28 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: no worries
18:35:31 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay
18:35:34 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari regading - Launchpad bug 1463928 in Group Based Policy UI "External connectivity UI is missing"
18:35:34 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1463928 in Group Based Policy UI "External connectivity UI is missing" [Critical,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1463928
18:35:36 <ivar-lazzaro> that's obviously better to be graceful when we can
18:35:42 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: right
18:35:47 <ivar-lazzaro> can't be too rude with the poor chains
18:35:48 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: this is a big one
18:35:54 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: lol!
18:36:07 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: i dont know who is working on this
18:36:50 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: we also need at least a short discussion on how we want to go about designing this UI before we implement
18:37:59 <ransari> SumitNaiksatam: sorry I stepped away
18:38:05 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: no worries
18:38:22 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: i am a bit concerned that we dont have an owner for the above
18:38:24 <ransari> This is an abosulte must for the production deployment
18:38:46 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: i agree, but we are behind on this
18:38:49 <ransari> Ankaiah can be specified as the owner
18:38:57 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: okay, good to know
18:39:01 <ransari> But we need to discuss on how to proceed
18:39:06 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: right
18:39:26 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: okay lets follow up offline, i would like to know what the user feedback and expectations are on this
18:40:00 <ransari> ok
18:40:01 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: have we covered all your items?
18:40:42 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: you mentioned https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy/+bug/1432816
18:40:42 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1432816 in Group Based Policy "inconsistent template ownership during chain creation" [High,In progress] - Assigned to Ivar Lazzaro (mmaleckk)
18:41:20 <ransari> yes
18:41:26 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: ok good
18:41:35 <SumitNaiksatam> so in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166424/ rkukura you seem to have the last comment
18:41:39 <SumitNaiksatam> but seems like a minor one
18:41:47 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: That one is still WIP
18:41:48 <SumitNaiksatam> hate to bug ivar-lazzaro again
18:42:05 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: your nova driver depends on the above?
18:42:14 <ivar-lazzaro> yeah the WIP is due to lack of validation so far
18:42:30 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: okay, seems like rkukura validated, no?
18:42:37 <ransari> Did we cover: https://bugs.launchpad.net/group-based-policy-ui/+bug/1482325
18:42:37 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1482325 in Group Based Policy UI "Instances in ERROR state don't show in GBP Member list" [Critical,Confirmed] - Assigned to ank (ank.b)
18:42:37 <ivar-lazzaro> waiting for rkukura to validate the the VMs are created correctly and the SG rules works
18:42:52 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: not sure about SG rules being applied
18:43:12 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: we did not cover, but i will follow up separately, i think it should be pretty doable
18:43:14 <rkukura> Only way I was able to get VMs to use the PT’s port is to use this patch and configure the UUID of the service tenant that owns the VM. Would like the option of specify tenant by name or UUID.
18:43:27 <ransari> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:43:36 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: I think that tenant names could overlap
18:43:43 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: that's why UUIDs are used
18:43:44 <rkukura> ivar-lazzaro: Right, looking at the SG rules is at the top of my list
18:44:11 <rkukura> UUIDs are OK, but difficult to configure, especially in devstack
18:44:31 <rkukura> How can different tenants log in if they have the same name?
18:45:28 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: good point
18:45:36 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: got to investigate this
18:46:01 <rkukura> I should be able to validate the SG rules tomorrow, if not tonight.
18:46:09 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: nice
18:46:24 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: perhaps you can relay your findings to ivar-lazzaro
18:46:33 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: perhaps okay to use tenant name?
18:46:40 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I’ll update the review, and email ivar-lazzaro
18:46:45 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks?
18:46:56 <ivar-lazzaro> rkukura: thx!
18:47:09 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: and error out if there is ambiguity/overlap?
18:47:29 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: sounds good
18:47:33 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: sorry i meant - thanks”!” :-)
18:47:51 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: ok cool
18:48:17 <SumitNaiksatam> so what else did we miss in terms of bugs that are targets for kilo?
18:48:53 <SumitNaiksatam> i will plug the couple of patches that i posted (in response to bugs) -
18:49:04 <SumitNaiksatam> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/209409 (Friendlier consumed/provided PRS input for PTG)
18:49:19 <SumitNaiksatam> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/208200 (Quota support for GBP resources)
18:49:28 <SumitNaiksatam> both are still not completely done
18:49:48 <SumitNaiksatam> there are at least a couple of CLI bugs in addition
18:50:11 <SumitNaiksatam> anything else we missed?
18:50:21 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ivar-lazzaro: magesh: ?
18:50:34 <ransari> SumitNaiksatam: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/209409 definitely improves usability!
18:50:40 <SumitNaiksatam> ransari: okay
18:50:41 <ivar-lazzaro> nope
18:50:48 <SumitNaiksatam> oh we missed ivar-lazzaro’s patch
18:50:55 <SumitNaiksatam> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/208059
18:51:23 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i believe the -1 is mostly very small things?
18:51:53 <SumitNaiksatam> the above is “subnet allocation improvement"
18:51:56 <rkukura> trivial, but didn’t want the bug closed by this patch
18:52:02 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:52:08 <ivar-lazzaro> ok
18:52:14 <ivar-lazzaro> I'll change the commit message right away
18:52:22 <ivar-lazzaro> and update the rest of the comments later
18:52:25 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro thanks for working on this - we cannot release without this fix
18:52:39 <ivar-lazzaro> I have it as a dependency anyways, so I push new patchsets often
18:52:59 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: assuming it really improves as much as it should ;)
18:53:04 <rkukura> Might as well address the mispelled variable name too while you are at it.
18:53:46 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: i think it will, really appreciate you coming up with the interim solution until we leverage the other components
18:54:00 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: at least it should address most cases
18:54:18 <ivar-lazzaro> hope to see some numbers soon!
18:54:41 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Testing
18:54:50 <SumitNaiksatam> a quick update on integration gate jon
18:54:53 <SumitNaiksatam> *job
18:55:05 <SumitNaiksatam> we now have a rally job running for both branches
18:55:22 <SumitNaiksatam> i have set the concurrency to 10
18:55:40 <SumitNaiksatam> i do see a few failures at times
18:56:25 <SumitNaiksatam> we havent merged the test in-tree, but if anyone wants to contribute more tests, we can get them in the tree right away (and be able to run it as a part of the external gbp rally package)
18:56:30 <SumitNaiksatam> just reach out to me
18:56:46 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Packaging update
18:56:49 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: anything?
18:56:56 <rkukura> not this week
18:57:00 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:57:05 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
18:57:19 <SumitNaiksatam> anything else we missed?
18:57:47 <SumitNaiksatam> would request everyone to please be deligent with the reviews in the next few days
18:58:01 <SumitNaiksatam> it will help our ability to get a good release out
18:58:43 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks for fixing the client dependencies!
18:58:50 <SumitNaiksatam> alright thanks everyone!
18:58:56 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I hope I got it right
18:59:06 <SumitNaiksatam> magesh: rkukura ivar-lazzaro ransari, can you join #openstack-gbp ?
18:59:18 <magesh> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:59:19 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i think it works
18:59:24 <SumitNaiksatam> bye all!
18:59:31 <rkukura> bye
18:59:33 <magesh> bye
18:59:34 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: ok
18:59:38 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting