15:04:22 <armax> #startmeeting neutron_drivers
15:04:23 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Oct 20 15:04:22 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is armax. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:04:25 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
15:04:27 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'neutron_drivers'
15:05:03 <armax> so amotoki and dougwig are not with us
15:05:13 * mestery mourns them both
15:05:27 <armax> so I gather it’s just mestery, kevinbenton and carl_baldwin and me from the neutron drivers team
15:05:31 <armax> mestery: oh boy
15:05:32 <mestery> Yup
15:05:35 <armax> that’s not what I meant
15:05:38 * regXboi wanders in to listen
15:05:38 <mestery> I know :)
15:05:39 <neiljerram> i;m here too
15:05:55 <armax> neiljerram: hi
15:06:09 <neiljerram> although obviously not driving :-)
15:06:14 <cloudon> also me, from the TelcoWG, as I have an RFE which may come up
15:06:41 <armax> ok, let’s see if we can wrap up the existing ones in flight
15:06:42 <armax> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=Triaged&field.tag=rfe
15:06:43 * HenryG lurks too
15:07:59 <armax> bug #1468366
15:07:59 <openstack> bug 1468366 in neutron "RFE - Logging API for security group and firewall rules" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1468366 - Assigned to Yushiro FURUKAWA (y-furukawa-2)
15:08:23 <kevinbenton> I haven't had a chance to review that one
15:09:18 <regXboi> kevinbenton: the spec continues to have issues
15:09:33 <mestery> LAst time I looked at this one, it had serious issues
15:10:07 <kevinbenton> Last time I had looked it was around logging destinations. Is that still the case?
15:10:15 <mestery> kevinbenton: Right, that's what I recall as well
15:10:23 <armax> carl_baldwin: did you look into that one?
15:10:31 <carl_baldwin> armax: not in a while
15:10:56 * carl_baldwin noticing that the specs are both abandoned
15:11:09 <armax> I guess that boils down to allowing proper auditing of security groups
15:11:13 <armax> and firewall rules
15:11:14 <regXboi> carl_baldwin: ?
15:11:27 <regXboi> what about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203509
15:11:32 <armax> if we break this down into two separate efforts
15:11:42 <armax> I wonder if that has higher chances of success
15:11:46 <mestery> armax: Maybe that's how it can be succesfull is breaking it down
15:11:50 <mestery> Because as it stands, it seems unlikely
15:11:56 <carl_baldwin> regXboi: Oops, missed that one.  It must have been the extra stuff around it meant to call attention to it.
15:11:59 <armax> the idea of logging for audit reasons seems sensible to me
15:12:24 <armax> ok let me provide some feedback on this one and see where we go
15:12:36 <armax> bug 1501380
15:12:36 <openstack> bug 1501380 in neutron "Evolution of options and features in neutron-db-manage" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1501380
15:12:53 <armax> HenryG: did you get a chance to elaborate more what you’re after?
15:13:06 <HenryG> I removed the rfe tag from bug #1501380. I may create individual bugs for the issues identified.
15:13:22 <armax> HenryG: ok fair enough
15:13:33 <armax> bug #1499864
15:13:33 <openstack> bug 1499864 in neutron "Fullstack infrastructure as a developer multi-node deployment tool" [Wishlist,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1499864
15:13:38 <armax> this one I looked
15:14:17 <armax> I am not sure if anyone is interested in doing the work, furthermore I see a lot of overlap with other tools
15:14:26 <armax> thoughts?
15:15:19 <carl_baldwin> Sounds a little like devstack light.
15:15:53 <armax> I don’t see anyone taking this on
15:16:11 <armax> amuller reported it but I don’t see he being the approver
15:16:23 <armax> and I don’t see an assignee stepping up either
15:16:36 <armax> I would be tempted to reject this for now
15:16:41 <mestery> Doesn't that kind of replicate devstack?
15:16:42 <mestery> Also
15:16:50 <mestery> Wouldn't it be better to look at utilizing something like Kolla instead?
15:16:52 <mestery> Just some thoughts
15:16:53 <armax> it’s slightly different
15:17:04 <armax> as this is for modeling testing scenarios
15:17:05 <mestery> ok
15:17:21 <armax> through a declarative model
15:17:32 <armax> devstack…I don’t even know what is
15:17:35 <armax> a pile of bash
15:17:45 <kevinbenton> If amuller wanted to push it, I wouldn't be apposed
15:17:53 <armax> kevinbenton: me neither
15:18:10 <armax> but for lack of resources I can’t see this happen any time soon
15:18:11 <mestery> ++, me either
15:18:13 <carl_baldwin> To be honest, I don’t see myself using it.
15:18:19 <armax> ok, I’ll provide feedback
15:18:20 <armax> next
15:18:30 <armax> bug 1458890
15:18:30 <openstack> bug 1458890 in neutron "Add segment support to Neutron" [Undecided,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1458890
15:19:11 <armax> I suspect we want this to happen one way or another…we still need to figure out how
15:19:13 <armax> correct?
15:19:13 <mestery> armax: That one is old!
15:19:17 <mestery> Yes
15:19:20 <mestery> The operators want this one
15:19:21 <carl_baldwin> Correct
15:19:30 <mestery> carl_baldwin: This is backed by your routed network work, correct?
15:19:36 <carl_baldwin> We have a good portion of a design session for this.
15:19:40 <carl_baldwin> mestery: Yes.
15:19:40 <armax> so it’s full blown spec process etc.
15:19:52 <carl_baldwin> armax: yes
15:19:53 <kevinbenton> Change the title of that!
15:20:00 <armax> mestery: you mean bug 1472704?
15:20:00 <openstack> bug 1472704 in neutron "Support networks that work through routing instead of bridging" [Undecided,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1472704 - Assigned to Neil Jerram (neil-jerram)
15:20:11 <mestery> armax: Seems like a duplicate
15:20:14 <mestery> carl_baldwin: Agree?
15:20:16 <neiljerram> No!
15:20:20 <mestery> No?
15:20:30 <carl_baldwin> I’m going to break my spec down.  Start with something more directly targetted at this rfe.
15:20:47 <neiljerram> No, not - sadly I hadn't prepared a quick statement of why!
15:20:48 <armax> ok
15:20:55 <mestery> lol, no worries neiljerram
15:21:10 <mestery> neiljerram: You just want to break the core tenant that networks are L2-reachable, right? ;)
15:21:12 <mestery> Nothing big there
15:21:14 <mestery> :)
15:21:19 <kevinbenton> First spec is about limited l2 domains
15:21:26 <neiljerram> But carl_baldwin, would you say that your model change spec is trying to address 1472704 as well?
15:21:40 <armax> if we can help it
15:21:41 <kevinbenton> Neil wants no L2 domains
15:21:43 <neiljerram> mestery: Yes.
15:21:46 <armax> let’s try to keep the two separate
15:22:04 <mestery> I think breaking that part of the model will prove difficult, but what do I know. :)
15:22:06 <carl_baldwin> neiljerram: No.
15:22:17 <neiljerram> I want something like a network, but that only provides IP reachability
15:22:19 <carl_baldwin> neiljerram: But, we should talk about it soon.
15:22:44 <neiljerram> carl_baldwin: Yes.  So possibly I should work on a separate spec for my use case.
15:23:02 <armax> neiljerram: I am still unclear about what’s required here
15:23:11 <armax> neiljerram: some of the patches referenced in the devref merged etc
15:23:22 <armax> neiljerram: what changes are you after to enable your use case?
15:23:30 <neiljerram> shall I try to explain now?
15:23:42 <armax> neiljerram: probably not
15:24:02 <armax> neiljerram: if you could give us an update based on the last events that happened in liberty
15:24:03 <neiljerram> I commented today in the bug, in response to your query - did you get a chance to read that
15:24:04 <armax> that would be good
15:24:12 <armax> neiljerram: I’ll go over it
15:24:13 <neiljerram> OK.
15:24:17 <armax> by the end of today
15:24:32 <armax> next bug
15:24:34 <armax> bug 1475736
15:24:34 <openstack> bug 1475736 in neutron "Add instrumentation to Neutron" [Undecided,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1475736 - Assigned to Ryan Moats (rmoats)
15:25:08 <regXboi> armax: you wrapped this into a previous blueprint?
15:25:33 <vikram> /quit
15:25:35 <armax> regXboi: I saw there was a blueprint registered
15:25:48 <armax> regXboi: and I tied it to this one
15:25:56 <regXboi> armax: no worries - just wanted to understand the thinking
15:26:33 <armax> regXboi: I think we all agree we may want to get an insight into a neutron system
15:26:41 <armax> at the moment we have nothing
15:27:32 <armax> I am not personally convinced we need to favor one protocol over another
15:27:48 <armax> for carrying out these stats from the platform to whoever is doing the monitoring
15:27:59 <regXboi> I owe an update to the devref, which is trying to get to that point
15:28:17 <armax> regXboi: so perhaps revisit the bug report description first?
15:28:50 <regXboi> armax: I can do that when I do the devref update
15:29:02 <armax> regXboi: ok
15:29:11 <armax> regXboi: ETA?
15:29:19 <regXboi> by COB this week
15:29:22 <armax> regXboi: ok
15:29:29 <regXboi> you'll have it before the summit
15:29:40 <armax> mestery: we usually have this meeting wrapped in 30 mins?
15:29:44 <armax> or it’s the full blown hour?
15:29:47 <armax> I don’t recall
15:29:49 <mestery> Yup
15:29:52 <kevinbenton> Hour and a half to 3
15:29:53 <mestery> Lets close this thing down
15:29:59 <mestery> I could use the extra 30 minutes myself ;)
15:30:14 * regXboi wanders back to -neutron
15:31:23 <armax> ok
15:31:28 <armax> let’s wrap up then
15:31:42 <armax> I have enough on my plate after these two past meetings to go by for a week :)
15:31:51 <mestery> :)
15:31:54 <mestery> thanks armax
15:31:55 <armax> if you guys can have a look at the NEW bugs
15:32:02 <neiljerram> thanks all
15:32:10 <mestery> New RFE bugs?
15:32:14 <armax> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bugs?field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.tag=rfe
15:32:16 * mestery loks now
15:32:18 <mestery> heh
15:32:20 <mestery> armax: We think alike ;)
15:32:21 <mestery> scary
15:32:26 <armax> let’s have a first pass offline
15:32:31 <armax> mestery: I suppose
15:32:31 <armax> !
15:32:38 <mestery> :)
15:32:54 <cloudon> if anyone wants to ask about https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1506076 I'm your man
15:32:54 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1506076 in neutron "Allow connection tracking to be disabled per-port" [Wishlist,Confirmed]
15:32:55 <armax> and we’ll come back to the list of CONFIRMED bugs next  week
15:33:21 <armax> cloudon: either offline, or next week
15:33:28 <armax> thanks folks
15:33:28 <cloudon> np
15:33:34 <armax> #endmeeting