18:01:30 <SumitNaiksatam> #startmeeting networking_policy
18:01:31 <openstack> Meeting started Thu Jan 18 18:01:30 2018 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SumitNaiksatam. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:01:32 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:01:34 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_policy'
18:02:01 <annakk> Do we want to discuss the potential talk in vancouver summit?
18:02:07 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: sure
18:03:04 <annakk> do we want it to be demo-like? for both aim and nsx?
18:03:07 <tbachman> #topic Vancouver Summit
18:03:24 <tbachman> #topic-fail :(
18:03:24 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Vancouver Summit
18:03:26 <annakk> maybe with focus on NFV since its in trend
18:03:29 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thx!
18:03:50 <SumitNaiksatam> #chair tbachman rkukura annakk
18:03:51 <openstack> Current chairs: SumitNaiksatam annakk rkukura tbachman
18:04:09 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: thanks :-)
18:04:17 <tbachman> rkukura: SumitNaiksatam: we should talk next week about the summit
18:04:29 <rkukura> tbachman: sure
18:04:33 * tbachman and rkukura will be in SJC next week
18:04:40 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: sure
18:05:11 <annakk> BTW I will be in PA Feb 5-8
18:05:20 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: when are the proprosals due?
18:05:26 <tbachman> annakk: are you going to propose a talk?
18:05:31 <tbachman> PA as in Pennsylvania, or PA as in Palo Alto?
18:05:36 <annakk> I don't know, probably soon
18:05:39 <annakk> Palo alto :)
18:05:43 <tbachman> :)
18:05:54 <rkukura> due Feb 8
18:06:17 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: good to know
18:06:30 <annakk> I have to confess I'm very bad with talks in front of big audience :)
18:06:39 <SumitNaiksatam> feb 8 gives a reasonable amount of time to plan
18:06:42 <tbachman> annakk: I’m most certainly worse
18:06:43 <annakk> I tend to change colors and forget english words
18:06:52 <SumitNaiksatam> lol
18:06:58 <tbachman> I tend to forget english words as well, even though it’s my native tongue
18:07:04 <annakk> :)
18:07:11 <tbachman> I even do that when I’m not nervous :P
18:07:13 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: dont worrry about it you will be fine
18:07:15 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: lol
18:07:45 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: so are you doing anything with GBP+NSX+NFV on the product side?
18:08:27 <annakk> Not yet, I was dragged out of openstack lately, but hopefully will be back to it in couple of months
18:08:42 <annakk> So hopefully we'll have something to show in may
18:08:58 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: okay
18:09:09 <tbachman> Seems like services, NFV, etc. are certainly hot
18:09:50 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: were you able to test GBP/Pike with NSX?
18:10:05 <annakk> not yet unfortunately..
18:10:08 <SumitNaiksatam> okay
18:10:22 <SumitNaiksatam> i am just trying to get a baseline of where we stand
18:10:55 <SumitNaiksatam> but i think we can safely assume that at least GBP/Pike+NSX will work at the time of the summit
18:11:14 <annakk> yes
18:11:16 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam, tbachman: Where do we stand on GBP/Pike+APIC testing?
18:11:31 <tbachman> rkukura: I believe we have pike artifacts, but no installer yet
18:11:41 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: is that correct?
18:11:47 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: right
18:11:55 <SumitNaiksatam> we are waiting for the installer
18:12:14 <rkukura> ok
18:12:15 <SumitNaiksatam> the coverage at this point is the devstack AIM gate job
18:12:50 <tbachman> annakk: I haven’t checked,  but is there a VMware gate for pike?
18:13:08 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: yes there is, but not for master/pike
18:13:25 <annakk> no, I'll move it from ocata to pike once its tested
18:13:36 <tbachman> annakk: thx!
18:14:24 <SumitNaiksatam> okay so i think we should at least be ready with pike to show for the summit
18:14:40 <SumitNaiksatam> however, the community would already have moved to Queens by then
18:15:09 <SumitNaiksatam> but i think we should still be okay with Pike, agree/disagree?
18:15:56 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: unless you have a secret Queens branch in your back pocket ;)
18:16:15 <annakk> was GBP in sync with the community in previous talks?
18:16:35 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: mostly yes, but it depends on what we want to show
18:16:50 <SumitNaiksatam> if we want to show integration with product older release in perfectly fine
18:17:49 <annakk> ok
18:18:33 <SumitNaiksatam> my hope is that queen’s sync might be easier, but i havent tried
18:19:06 <annakk> will it help someone to get travel approvals if he proposes the talk? I don't need travel obviously
18:19:21 <SumitNaiksatam> i think we are good
18:19:42 <SumitNaiksatam> if talk gets accepted we should be able to travel, at least one of us
18:19:57 <SumitNaiksatam> (most likely more than one though)
18:20:22 <annakk> ok
18:20:32 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: tbachman: right?
18:20:45 <SumitNaiksatam> at least we dont have visa issues
18:20:52 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: I’d think so — we’ll obviously need to talk w/folks out there next week
18:21:03 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: right, but i think it shoud be fine
18:21:04 <tbachman> I think topics is going to be the biggest question.
18:21:12 <SumitNaiksatam> we havent done this for a bit, so it should be okay
18:21:16 <tbachman> It’s 5/21-24?
18:21:27 <tbachman> Vancouver is just a puddle-jumper for you all in SJC ;)
18:21:28 <SumitNaiksatam> we might have other things lined up as well, so this probably be in addition to that
18:21:54 <tbachman> nice time to visit there, too
18:22:01 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: you bet
18:22:05 <annakk> yes :)
18:22:24 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: i forget had you done the OpenStack @ Vancouver last time?
18:22:33 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: alas, no
18:22:45 * tbachman has only been to the (2nd) Austin summit
18:22:53 <SumitNaiksatam> then you should definitely go
18:23:02 <SumitNaiksatam> really loved Vancouver, rkukura what say?
18:23:12 * tbachman used to visit Vancouver when he grew up in the PNW
18:23:12 <rkukura> definitely would like to go back!
18:23:31 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: oh of course, i forgot about that!
18:23:35 <SumitNaiksatam> anyway
18:24:01 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: so apart from the “NFV” integration, what would be other things that you would like to highlight?
18:24:51 <annakk> just the fact that we have a new driver
18:24:53 <SumitNaiksatam> btw, tactically speaking #link https://www.openstack.org/summit/vancouver-2018/summit-categories/
18:24:59 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: okay :-)
18:25:21 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: did garyk have something specific in mind?
18:25:42 <annakk> I'll talk with him
18:25:54 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: okay
18:26:04 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: do you work on the container’s side at all?
18:26:32 <annakk> no, its the other part of the team
18:27:28 <annakk> I'm currently involved with terraform..
18:27:53 <annakk> btw maybe we should write a terraform provide for GBP :)
18:27:55 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: nice
18:28:00 <annakk> *provider*
18:29:09 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: good pointer, will look
18:29:44 <annakk> I hear field is shifting to terraform from heat
18:29:50 <SumitNaiksatam> apart from the NFV track, i was wondering if this “Container Infrastructure” was fit
18:29:56 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: ah okay
18:30:38 <SumitNaiksatam> its clear that we are fishing a bit here
18:30:52 <SumitNaiksatam> but i think its fine, we brainstorm a bit, and go back and think
18:31:25 <annakk> do you have use cases with containers?
18:32:15 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: yes with containers, but have to think about GBP
18:33:42 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: does your team work on cloud foundry?
18:33:56 <annakk> I never thought of combining gbp with nsx container solution, will have a think about that
18:33:59 <annakk> yes
18:34:43 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: okay
18:34:57 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: your thoughts?
18:35:53 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Definitely would like to participate, but we need to put some thought into possible topics
18:36:00 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: right
18:36:30 <SumitNaiksatam> i think where we are mostly at is, we have focussed less on new features in the past few cycles and more on the production side
18:36:43 <SumitNaiksatam> so most of the shiny new features have already been presented
18:36:49 <rkukura> Does it make any sense to kick-off trying to make GBP an official project?
18:37:20 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: sure
18:37:21 <annakk> rkukura: do we need to be in sync with the release cycle for that?
18:37:34 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: i would imagine
18:37:51 <SumitNaiksatam> perhaps the talk/presentation can serve as a springboard for that as well
18:37:59 <rkukura> Agreed we don’t have much in the way of new features. But we might want to talk about GBP’s NFP vs. Neutron’s SFC
18:38:28 <annakk> Can you say a few words about sfc integration? I've seen the commit
18:38:32 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: to your point, there might some procedural effort involved to get it to the point of applying
18:38:55 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: this is mostly on the aim driver side for now
18:39:08 <SumitNaiksatam> we would need to discuss the GBP mapping
18:39:27 <SumitNaiksatam> that discussion can hopefully happen in this meeting/community
18:39:59 <annakk> ok
18:40:08 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: but we can definitely discuyss that patch if you are interested
18:40:19 <tbachman> assuming some of us go, would we want to procure a meeting room for a GBP breakout dev session?
18:40:23 <SumitNaiksatam> we can check if Ivar can join the meeting, better to hear it from the author
18:40:50 <tbachman> I’ve gotten confused about the different summit tracks again
18:40:56 <tbachman> is there a dev session associated with this?
18:41:00 <tbachman> is it all dev?
18:41:36 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: if they do provide space for unofficial projects, we should (assuming we are still not official until then)
18:41:37 <annakk> tbachman: I think the talk and the dev session are not related
18:41:57 <tbachman> thx!
18:42:23 <rkukura> I haven’t been to a summit in a while, but I don’t think there are official development meetings for projects anymore
18:42:47 <tbachman> rkukura: I think you’re the most recent summit-attendee from our group
18:42:48 <SumitNaiksatam> annakk: even showing the mere integration, say GBP+NSX is a good demo
18:42:56 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: +1
18:42:58 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: lol
18:43:10 <SumitNaiksatam> wait annakk did sydney, right?
18:43:18 <tbachman> right — meant from our SJC group
18:43:18 <rkukura> thought so
18:43:24 <tbachman> sorry
18:43:25 <annakk> tbachman: in australia there were quite a few for neutron, I think they are called workshops or something like that
18:43:32 * tbachman meant no slight to annakk
18:43:44 <rkukura> ok
18:43:53 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: no my bad, didnt mean it that way :-)
18:44:13 <annakk> np :)
18:44:43 <SumitNaiksatam> one way or the other, we are one happy OpenStack family
18:44:56 <tbachman> :)
18:45:09 * tbachman queues Disney music
18:45:15 <annakk> :)
18:45:21 <SumitNaiksatam> okay shall we table the discussion for today on this?
18:45:29 <rkukura> sure
18:45:34 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: ack
18:45:37 <SumitNaiksatam> may be chew on this a bit more and regroup over emails
18:45:43 <SumitNaiksatam> #topic Pike Sync
18:45:51 <SumitNaiksatam> so thanks for all the reviews
18:46:08 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: thanks for all your hard work!
18:46:10 <SumitNaiksatam> in my estimation all the work is mostly done, including some clean up
18:46:13 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: np
18:46:19 <SumitNaiksatam> but please do try to test it
18:46:25 <SumitNaiksatam> oh one big thing
18:46:31 <annakk> will do
18:46:39 <SumitNaiksatam> i actually watned to put it on the agenda, completely forgot
18:46:52 <SumitNaiksatam> so there is a quirk with rollbacks
18:47:13 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: in pike only?
18:47:32 <SumitNaiksatam> tbachman: yes
18:47:50 <SumitNaiksatam> so earlier: with session.begin(subtransactions=true)
18:47:59 <SumitNaiksatam> will create new nested transactions
18:48:42 <SumitNaiksatam> so in the innnermost transaction, if you fail (exception is raised), nothing is committed
18:49:13 <SumitNaiksatam> however with the new pattern: with context_manager.writer(context)
18:49:40 <SumitNaiksatam> when you nest multiple of those, there is no new nested transaction
18:49:53 <SumitNaiksatam> the same transaction is preserved
18:50:35 <SumitNaiksatam> and some kind of a soft commit happens after the scope of each “with” ends
18:50:56 <annakk> I think there was a thread in emails about making sub-transaction behavior default with new pattern
18:51:01 <annakk> I can try to find it
18:51:29 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Can you explain what you mean by “soft commit”?
18:51:33 <SumitNaiksatam> so if you happened to raise an exception and caught that exception somewhere in the nesting, and did not raise it, the soft commits might actually get committed
18:52:02 <rkukura> So the inner transaction might commit even when the outer transaction rolls back?
18:52:05 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: i was waiting for that question from you :-)
18:53:02 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: so the outermost transaction actually did not rollback, because the exception was caught inside the outermost transaction
18:53:45 <SumitNaiksatam> the way this is different from using the older pattern, is that the soft commit would not happen in the first place with the exception being raised from the inner transaction
18:54:19 <SumitNaiksatam> regarding soft commit - i meant update of sqlalchemy data structures (which it uses for bookkeeping)
18:54:34 <SumitNaiksatam> we saw this happen in Ivar’s patch with the UTs
18:54:58 <rkukura> So if the exception is raised in the inner TX and not caught in either the inner or outer TX, do both inner and outer TX roll back?
18:55:12 <SumitNaiksatam> i was hoping to explain with that specific example, but sorry i didnt do my prep work, so i dont have it ready to copy-paste here
18:55:24 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: yes, that case works fine
18:55:25 <rkukura> SumitNaiksatam: Are you saying the datastructures reflect updates that are not committed in the DB?
18:56:00 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: right
18:56:13 <SumitNaiksatam> and those are eventually committed if the exception is not re-raised
18:56:30 <SumitNaiksatam> so at the face of it might seem thats how it should work
18:56:59 <SumitNaiksatam> but its different from how it used to work
18:57:21 <SumitNaiksatam> it might not actually have a deployment implication, but at least manifested in tests
18:57:32 <SumitNaiksatam> and good to understand the different in the usage patterns
18:57:46 <SumitNaiksatam> we got around this by nesting the older pattern with the newer pattern
18:57:50 <SumitNaiksatam> more details next time
18:57:54 <SumitNaiksatam> we are out of time
18:58:12 <SumitNaiksatam> anything else urgent?
18:58:13 <rkukura> ok, thanks SumitNaiksatam!
18:58:23 <rkukura> nothing urgent from me
18:58:26 <SumitNaiksatam> i meant difference in usage patterns
18:58:50 <SumitNaiksatam> rkukura: annakk tbachman: thanks for joining
18:58:52 <tbachman> SumitNaiksatam: bye!
18:58:59 <rkukura> bye
18:59:01 <SumitNaiksatam> keep the discussion going on the summit talk
18:59:03 <SumitNaiksatam> bye
18:59:07 <SumitNaiksatam> #endmeeting