18:02:20 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:02:21 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Feb 11 18:02:20 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:02:22 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:02:24 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:02:35 <SumitNaiksatam> #info agenda https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/GroupBasedPolicy#Feb_11th.2C_4th.2C_2016
18:03:26 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Bugs
18:03:32 <ivar-lazzaro> hi
18:03:57 <SumitNaiksatam> the fix for the critical bug which we was reported last week in the UI, is still making its way through the backports
18:04:00 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: hi
18:04:10 <hemanthravi> hi
18:04:27 <SumitNaiksatam> other than that i dont see any critical priority pending bugs
18:04:31 <SumitNaiksatam> songole: hi
18:04:57 <songole> Hi SumitNaiksatam
18:05:03 <SumitNaiksatam> speak up if anyone has any high priority bugs to discuss
18:05:39 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Packaging
18:05:54 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: still no new releases of the stable branches
18:06:13 <SumitNaiksatam> since i noticed that we still seem to be fix some issues in the drivers
18:06:14 <rkukura> right, but a bit of news on the RDO front
18:06:24 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yes, saw the email
18:06:27 <SumitNaiksatam> please go ahead
18:06:58 <rkukura> The Red Hat folks are proceeding with setting up our kilo and liberty branches in Delorean
18:07:12 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: nice!
18:07:36 <rkukura> So package builds for RDO on CentOS 7 will be generated on each commit to those branches
18:07:54 <tbachman> rkukura: sweet!
18:07:55 <rkukura> I believe some CI is done on those as well.
18:08:03 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ok, that was my question
18:08:13 <SumitNaiksatam> do they run a CI, and if so what does it do?
18:09:07 <rkukura> They run tempest smoke tests on the packages. Initially I think this will just verify that installing our packages doesn’t break those tests.
18:09:28 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: ok, that sounds reasonable
18:09:43 <rkukura> I think we will need puppet modules integrating GBP with the base RDO install to actually configure GBP
18:10:06 <rkukura> Then it should be possible to get additional tests run against the deployment
18:10:30 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: is there a specific time frame by which we need to get this done?
18:10:43 <SumitNaiksatam> and/or is it a requirement for “certification”?
18:11:46 <rkukura> I don’t think this is directly a requirement for vendor product certification that is based on RHEL OSP, not RDO.
18:12:03 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:12:17 <rkukura> We do need to make a bit of a commitment though
18:12:36 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: committment to add the puppet modules?
18:12:42 <rkukura> Once GBP is turned on in Delorean, we are obligated to fix issues that show up.
18:13:01 <rkukura> I don’t think we are commited to add the puppet modules, at least not yet
18:13:35 <rkukura> But if we commit something that breaks whatver testing is being done with Delorean, we are expected to promptly fix it
18:14:10 <rkukura> There would be automated email notification to the maintainer(s) if something breaks
18:14:16 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:14:39 <rkukura> Right now, I’m the only maintainer listed. But we should add at least one more to make sure we can always respond quickly
18:14:56 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: until there are no tests are not run against GBP, then no GBP modules will get loaded
18:15:36 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so the chances that it breaks their tests (say tempest tests for neutron) is pretty slim, right?
18:15:40 <rkukura> Right, but it is still possible something could change that prevented RPMs from building or installing, and that would need to be fixed
18:15:51 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: absolutely
18:15:58 <rkukura> Like dependency issues, etc.
18:16:22 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: right
18:16:22 <rkukura> Of course, we will want to enable this for master too as soon as possible
18:16:36 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yes, since you bring up master
18:16:52 <rkukura> Which I think requires our master to depend on the other projects’ master branches rather than liberty
18:17:01 <SumitNaiksatam> i hit a bit of a speed bump on syncing our master with openstack master
18:17:17 <SumitNaiksatam> having some problems with extension loading in the tests
18:17:34 <SumitNaiksatam> so i am working on that
18:17:59 <SumitNaiksatam> one thing to note, all extension definitions should always extend ExtensionDescriptor
18:18:14 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I wouldn’t be surprised if something has changed that would require our monkeypaching to be updated
18:18:28 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: true, but i have not reached that point yet
18:18:36 <rkukura> OK
18:18:52 <SumitNaiksatam> my thinking was that some of the monkey patching would not be needed any more
18:19:10 <rkukura> that would be ideal
18:19:11 <SumitNaiksatam> our Group_policy_mapping extension was not extending ExtensionDescriptor and that was preventing it from being loaded
18:20:00 <SumitNaiksatam> the next problem i am facing is that our tests fail at loading a new extension “router_availability” extension that was just introduced in neutron
18:20:11 <SumitNaiksatam> ideally we should not have to load this extension
18:20:39 <SumitNaiksatam> but the way our UTs are setup its getting into some wierd extension dependency issue
18:20:40 * tbachman wonders if that has to do with our L3 plugin inheriting from DVS
18:20:46 <tbachman> s/DVS/DVR/
18:20:50 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: good point
18:21:11 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: however, I dont think our UTs use the DVR based extension
18:21:38 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: ACK
18:21:41 * SumitNaiksatam cant help notice that tbachman also lives in DVS in land, chuckle!!
18:21:45 <tbachman> lol
18:22:11 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: if only I had a nickel for everytime I mis-typed GBP and BGP
18:22:18 <SumitNaiksatam> so anyone, just wanted to say that i am slowed up on that front
18:22:19 <tbachman> too many TLAs
18:22:24 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: lol!
18:22:49 <rkukura> ;)
18:23:19 <SumitNaiksatam> so the other thing about sycing up with the master, i am only doing things that will get the UTs and integration tests to pass
18:23:35 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Let me know if I can help (although I’ll be on PTO next week)
18:23:39 <SumitNaiksatam> i anticipate that we will have to add follow up patches to incorporate some of the newer “features"
18:23:54 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yes sure, will definitely ping you when you are available
18:24:07 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: thanks for the update on packaging
18:24:12 <rkukura> np
18:24:32 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Design Specs
18:24:50 <SumitNaiksatam> QoS #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/275358/
18:24:53 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: hi
18:25:25 <SumitNaiksatam> i noticed igordcard posted an update on the spec
18:25:54 <SumitNaiksatam> not sure if folks got a chance to take a look
18:26:10 <SumitNaiksatam> if not we can spend a couple of mins reading this section:
18:26:12 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/275358/3/specs/mitaka/initial-qos-support.rst
18:26:15 <SumitNaiksatam> its short
18:26:30 <SumitNaiksatam> i meant “REST API impact” section
18:26:33 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam, hi
18:26:44 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: ah you are back
18:26:51 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks for the updated spec
18:27:03 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam, yes I'm here but I'm splitting my attention, unfortunately
18:27:13 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: np
18:27:37 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: so i am leaning towards an abstracted resource definition for QoS in GBP
18:27:45 <SumitNaiksatam> what does the rest of the team think?
18:29:08 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: I think that makes sense
18:29:14 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: okay
18:29:49 <SumitNaiksatam> any one else have thoughts on this please comment on the review
18:30:17 <ivar-lazzaro> SumitNaiksatam: will do
18:30:18 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: could you provide a strawman of what the abstracted QoS definition would look like in this spec?
18:30:22 <SumitNaiksatam> ivar-lazzaro: thanks
18:30:30 <hemanthravi> QoS was one of the actions we had from the start, will go through and post my comments
18:30:37 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: ok thanks
18:30:45 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam, yes I'll come up with something
18:30:51 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: great thanks!
18:30:59 <igordcard> SumitNaiksatam, can you leave a comment on the spec with the abstract resource idea?
18:31:06 <SumitNaiksatam> igordcard: ok
18:32:04 <SumitNaiksatam> next one, “NFP” #link # https://review.openstack.org/#/c/239743 (we have a new TLA ;-) _
18:32:17 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: ;)
18:32:32 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thanks for posting the update
18:32:51 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: but i dont think the team would have had a change to go through your latest rev
18:32:55 <SumitNaiksatam> *chance
18:33:16 <hemanthravi> update has most of the structure and the apis, would like to get comments on this once they have a chance to review
18:33:41 <SumitNaiksatam> i had some comments (probably the same as what i had communicated offline) but i did not get a chance to note them
18:34:06 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: is this spec complete at your end, or is it still WIP?
18:34:09 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam:addressed some of them in the updated one, will respond to the other
18:34:37 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: specifically my question in the context of the API definition and data model
18:34:54 <hemanthravi> some of the api's might change, but i think it'c complete enough to get reviews
18:35:33 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay
18:35:38 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: what is NSD?
18:35:58 <hemanthravi> network service device
18:36:09 <hemanthravi> for eg a vm that renders the service
18:36:31 <hemanthravi> i'll add the description in the spec, if it's missing
18:36:33 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay, i see that you have it defined, sorry did not find that earlier
18:37:03 <hemanthravi> addressed that from the last set of comments
18:37:44 <SumitNaiksatam> any questions for hemanthravi at this point?
18:38:04 <SumitNaiksatam> there was an offline meeting to discuss some of this context, at which most of this team was present
18:38:35 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: assignees - “Rukhsana Ansari (rukansari)” still valid?
18:38:55 <hemanthravi> i'll change that
18:39:25 <hemanthravi> after i check with her
18:39:38 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thanks
18:39:47 <SumitNaiksatam> it will be great to have her contribute
18:39:48 <hemanthravi> after everyone had a chance to review, we could do another hangout if reqd
18:39:59 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam:yes
18:40:02 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: does “network_service_healthmonitor” have anything to do with the lbaas healthmonitor or is it an independent definition?
18:40:19 <hemanthravi> this is independent of lb
18:40:48 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay
18:40:55 <hemanthravi> and will apply to any type of service, the impl abstracted by a driver
18:41:21 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay, the status will be something binary, like UP or DOWN?
18:41:31 <hemanthravi> yes
18:41:36 <SumitNaiksatam> i can check later if its defined in the spec somewhere
18:41:39 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay thanks
18:42:03 <SumitNaiksatam> requesting everyone in the team to take a look at this revised version of the spec
18:42:30 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: should we expect to see WIP implementation patches while we are discussing this spec?
18:43:08 <hemanthravi> SumitNaiksatam:yes, magesh, ahmed should be submitting patches soon
18:43:48 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: okay great, thanks for the update and looking forward to the patches as well
18:43:50 <hemanthravi> will go in parallel for some time
18:44:00 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: cool
18:44:10 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Open Discussion
18:44:46 <SumitNaiksatam> last week rkukura brought up the topic of Austin Summit submissions
18:45:35 <SumitNaiksatam> some of use submitted this:
18:45:42 <SumitNaiksatam> #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/vote-for-speakers/Presentation/6894
18:45:48 <SumitNaiksatam> as a hands on session
18:46:00 <SumitNaiksatam> please vote
18:46:13 <SumitNaiksatam> anyone submit anything else specific to GBP?
18:46:40 <hemanthravi> https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/vote-for-speakers/Presentation/8724
18:46:47 <hemanthravi> vote on this one too
18:47:24 <SumitNaiksatam> hemanthravi: thanks
18:47:38 <hemanthravi> few more below
18:47:39 <hemanthravi> https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/vote-for-speakers/Presentation/7359
18:47:58 <hemanthravi> https://www.openstack.org/summit/austin-2016/vote-for-speakers/Presentation/8595
18:48:10 <hemanthravi> from a GBP based cloud deployer
18:48:46 <SumitNaiksatam> anything else to discuss today?
18:49:12 * tbachman wonders if his IRC client is stuck
18:49:35 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: we see you
18:49:51 <SumitNaiksatam> if nothing else, we can wrap up for today!
18:49:55 <SumitNaiksatam> thanks all for joining
18:49:57 <SumitNaiksatam> bye!
18:50:01 <ivar-lazzaro> bye!
18:50:01 <rkukura> thanks SumitNaiksatam!
18:50:03 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting