15:30:42 #startmeeting neutron-drivers 15:30:43 Meeting started Wed Jun 10 15:30:42 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is mestery. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:30:44 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:30:47 The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_drivers' 15:30:56 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NeutronDrivers Agenda 15:31:03 #topic Action Item Review 15:31:15 I had an action item to sort out Lt. vs. drivers. I'm still working on it :) 15:31:19 I'll take that for next week too 15:31:27 #action mestery to sort out neutron-drivers vs. Lts. and the path forward 15:31:43 HenryG: You had an item to bring up bug 1460720 in an L3 meeting and discuss with carl_baldwin, did that happen by chance? 15:31:46 bug 1460720 in neutron "Add API to set ipv6 gateway" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1460720 - Assigned to Abishek Subramanian (absubram) 15:33:34 mestery: It didn’t happen. 15:33:40 carl_baldwin: :) 15:33:45 carl_baldwin: OK, lets hope it does this week then. 15:33:58 I’ll keep it on the agenda. 15:34:01 #action HenryG to make sure Bug 1460720 is discussed during an upcoming L3 meeting with carl_baldwin and team 15:34:02 bug 1460720 in neutron "Add API to set ipv6 gateway" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1460720 - Assigned to Abishek Subramanian (absubram) 15:34:05 Yeah, sorry abotu that. Will try again. 15:34:10 HenryG: No worries :) 15:34:25 #topic Specific Spec Review 15:34:33 Lets see about this. 15:34:34 I spent an hour going through specs this morning. 15:34:36 Yikes. 15:34:40 There is a LOT there. 15:34:45 I only made it through maybe 15-20 specs. 15:34:56 Lets start with some specs from carl_baldwin :) 15:35:04 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/172244/ Routing Networks 15:35:13 This one is important because it satisfies the network segment RFE as well 15:35:18 And operators really want that solved 15:35:24 carl_baldwin: Thansk for the re-spin on this one! 15:35:48 mestery: I’m not sure it gets the whole network segment rfe but it gets much closer. 15:36:03 I hesitate to promise to deliver both 15:36:16 carl_baldwin: If it moves us in that direction it's a win-win I think 15:36:26 But, they have the ability to map to network segments which both can use. 15:36:50 I'd like to highlight that one for other drivers (amotoki dougwig marun) to review this week. 15:36:57 carl_baldwin: ++ 15:37:11 mestery: sure 15:37:17 Continuing on our "carl_baldwin spec review path" :) 15:37:20 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/16961 Address Scopes 15:37:25 kevinbenton had some comments on this one carl_baldwin 15:37:39 i think address scopes is ready, minus the name being non-intuitive. 15:37:48 dougwig: ++ 15:37:52 mestery: Still going through those comments. I was distracted by something else yesterday. 15:38:09 carl_baldwin: Not a problem, I think once you address kevinbenton's comments dougwig and I can merge it and you can get rolling 15:38:25 dougwig: Any better suggestions yet? 15:38:51 no, i keep thinking of the royal Network (used) or NetworkGroup (not any more intuitive.) 15:38:54 link looks wrong 15:39:12 #undo 15:39:13 Removing item from minutes: 15:39:15 #link https://review.openstack.org/180267 Address Scopes 15:39:18 marun: there it is 15:39:23 danke 15:39:26 :) 15:39:34 marun: I am here to serve ;) 15:40:59 Next up on the highlight list (and not a carl_baldwin spec): 15:41:04 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94612/ VLAN Aware VMs 15:41:26 I see russellb provided some recent comments on this one 15:41:31 * carl_baldwin could’ve written that one. 15:41:35 rofl 15:42:33 Does anyone have objections to the main tenant of htis spec: the idea of subports 15:43:16 did this spec get updated with the sort of consensus from the summit? 15:43:17 I have a bit different view on this. we can use the similar model for vlan aware VMs as L2GW if l2gw takes a logical port as a member. 15:43:40 but it is just my thought at the moment. 15:43:57 am looking through the spec now. 15:44:26 amotoki: Interesting thought 15:44:33 dougwig: That's also unclear to me 15:44:47 i'll take a look. 15:44:51 too 15:45:19 thanks dougwig 15:45:33 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/169612 Availability Zones 15:46:02 This one needs a little work yet, but seems like something worth pursuring 15:46:56 The current implementation patch is here: 15:47:03 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/183369 Availability Zones Implementation 15:47:04 It's not that huge 15:47:47 And finally 15:47:51 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/184857/ Get Me a Network 15:47:56 there are many/several use cases for AZ. The proposed spec has a limited scope, but we tend to see more by "AZ". 15:48:13 amotoki: Agreed on both fronts 15:48:51 is get me a network ready for review, or does it still need someone to own it? 15:49:25 dougwig: It still needs an owner, from the meeting Monday I thought someone had volunteered 15:49:27 Let me look at the log 15:50:21 dougwig: armax had volunteered in the meeting I see 15:51:02 in the spec review, mark, zzelle and vikram volunteered for contributing. 15:51:04 I'll keep on that and ensure we do find an owner. 15:51:07 #action mestery to find owner for "Get Me a Network" spec 15:51:18 amotoki: Yes! We need an explicit owner however :) 15:51:37 mestery: exactly :) 15:51:43 OK, anyone want to bringup another spec? 15:51:46 * mestery waits for 60 seconds 15:52:14 one. 15:53:08 dougwig: which one? 15:53:09 lib split spec. since it's now in-tree, and going to evolve, and the spec has objections that they want to see more of what it's going to be, would that make more sense to do with the new process? document the use cases, and then show the files in the first commit/devref doc? 15:53:33 i think it's probably the same work to work up the first lib patch than to rewrite that spec. 15:53:45 dougwig: I'm torn on this one. It's a lib-split, so I can see moving forward with the spec as-is, but devref doc may make sense too. I'd lean towards the latter rather than the former. 15:54:03 dougwig: Abandon and move on to a patch then? 15:54:06 how about i vastly trim the spec, and move half into devref? 15:54:11 ++ 15:54:28 i'll get a re-spin today. 15:55:24 thanks 15:55:43 ++ 15:56:14 OK moving along 15:56:42 I suggest we do RFE reviews offline unless anyone wants to discuss a specific one here. Thoughts? 15:57:35 i assume most of them are non-contentious, e.g., this group doesn't want to see lbaas RFE's, so that's fine by me. 15:57:48 ++ 15:57:51 Done! 15:57:51 i do need a quick primer on what states/milestones you want things put into when they're approved, though. 15:58:04 dougwig: Don't do that, the new release process maps them after they merge 15:58:08 Lazy releases 15:58:12 I mean, you can map them if you want, but don't have to 15:58:15 right, but they have to go from NEW -> ? 15:58:18 Ah 15:58:23 Ping me and I'll take care of that for you 15:58:50 OK, thanks folks! 15:58:52 #endmeeting