14:00:06 <gcb> #startmeeting  oslo
14:00:07 <openstack> Meeting started Mon Aug 14 14:00:06 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gcb. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:08 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:10 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'oslo'
14:00:18 <gcb> courtesy ping for amotoki, amrith, bknudson, bnemec, crushil, dansmith, dhellmann
14:00:20 <gcb> courtesy ping for dims, dougwig, e0ne, electrocucaracha, flaper87, garyk, gcb
14:00:20 <gcb> courtesy ping for GheRivero, haypo, jd__, jecarey, johnsom, jungleboyj, kgiusti
14:00:20 <gcb> courtesy ping for kragniz, lhx_, lifeless, lxsli, Nakato, ozamiatin, rbradfor
14:00:20 <gcb> courtesy ping for redrobot, rpodolyaka, sergmelikyan, sileht, spamaps, sreshetnyak, sreshetnyak
14:00:23 <gcb> courtesy ping for stevemar, therve, thinrichs, toabctl, viktors, zhiyan, zzzeek,zxy
14:00:47 <zxy> o/
14:00:59 <jungleboyj> @!
14:01:00 <_pewp_> jungleboyj |。･ω･|ﾉ
14:01:10 <ansmith> o/
14:01:37 <ruan__he> o/
14:01:46 <gcb> hello everyone \o/
14:01:47 <amotoki> o/
14:02:11 <gcb> #topic Red flags for/from liaisons
14:02:36 <jungleboyj> Nothing from Cinder.  We are just trying to get everything stable for release.  :-)
14:02:45 <gcb> jungleboyj,  thanks
14:03:09 <gcb> I didn't find failures in http://status.openstack.org/openstack-health/#/?groupKey=build_name&resolutionKey=hour&searchProject=-with-oslo
14:03:33 <gcb> #topic Releases
14:03:37 <amrith> ./
14:03:53 <amrith> nothing from trove, trying to stabilize our gate
14:03:54 <gcb> hi amrith
14:04:06 <gcb> amrith: ack
14:04:57 <gcb> there is no release patch this week, will hold master branch releases until cycle Queues open
14:05:01 <amrith> hi gcb, at some point I'd like to know what the oslo plans are for the queens release so we can plan on those integrations/changes early. We're strapped for people and I don't want to find ourselves in a crunch late in the release cycle with a broken release.
14:05:22 <amrith> this includes obsoleting/deprecation, and required changes of any kind.
14:06:52 <gcb> amrith: good point, I will summary the plans and potential changes for consuming projects at the beginning of Queues and then send out to dev ML
14:07:23 <amrith> gcb, would be good to treat them similar to (not with the same community voting/participation thing) the cross project goals
14:07:33 <amrith> not to derail your meeting
14:07:49 <amrith> but the idea is that simple ML communication does not guarantee acknowledgement
14:07:56 <amotoki> really good point. oslo covers broad areas and it would be nice to share such plans
14:08:08 <amrith> one of the things that came out of the software stewardship group was that positive acknowledgement was valuable
14:08:18 <amrith> and as amotoki says, oslo covers a lot of land.
14:08:52 <amrith> and therefore if we had this kind of changes with wide impact, having the same governance as the cross project goals, with a review tracking project compliance for example, we'd ensure no late surprises.
14:09:06 <amrith> I would also like to fix trove so we work regularly with the tip of oslo so we catch these things early.
14:09:16 <amrith> but given that most of troves gate is red these days, it may not be a big win.
14:09:20 * amrith shuts up
14:10:20 <gcb> amrith: thanks for the suggestions, sorry for the gate failure due to oslo stuff,  agree we will find a way to communicate clearly :-)
14:10:33 <amotoki> amrith: if you have some worth shared and gathering interests from specific group(s), it might be a good idea to have some meeting topic to share updates
14:10:38 <gcb> maybe we can add this as one topic for PTG
14:10:38 <amotoki> it might help communications
14:10:53 <amrith> gcb, sure thing. I plan to be at PTG
14:10:57 <amrith> can chat more there
14:11:23 <gcb> amrith: cool , thanks amotoki
14:11:37 <gcb> okay let's move on
14:12:03 <gcb> we must revert https://review.openstack.org/#/c/493514/ due to it seems like a feature backport
14:12:42 <gcb> otherwise we can't issue new releases for stable/ocata, oslo core reviewers please look at this when you're free
14:13:02 <gcb> #topic A new Keystone-Oslo hook for external PDP
14:13:42 <gcb> ruan__he: it's your turn
14:13:48 <ruan__he> this is a topic discussed in the last keystone-policy meeting
14:14:02 <gcb> background  http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-August/120955.html
14:14:31 <ruan__he> the main idea is to use an external policy engine instead the native oslo.policy based on policy.json
14:15:38 <gcb> ruan_he: so it doesn't need restart service if we change the police rules in external policy engine, right ?
14:15:47 <ruan__he> yes
14:16:28 <ruan__he> and the policy engine will work for all the services instead of one policy.json per service
14:16:52 <gcb> and administrator can edit the policy rule online, that sounds a great feature
14:17:08 <gcb> dims: around ?
14:17:15 <ruan__he> exactly what we plan to do
14:18:26 <amotoki> from neutron perspective, it has several neutron-specific policy definitions, so it would be nice if we can provide compatibility.
14:18:34 <ruan__he> anther important feature is that it will work at the same time for openstack and other sdn controllers like opendaylight: https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/46146/
14:18:47 <amotoki> (we would like to clean them up, but it will take time)
14:20:10 <ruan__he> this is only a supplementary option, you can continue use your policy if you like. for those who don't want, they can activate this option with an external engine like Apache Fortress
14:21:07 <ruan__he> if you look at the odl commit, it has been already integrated in Carbon
14:21:13 <gcb> ruan__he, amotoki: compatible policy definitions is import
14:21:48 <amotoki> generally I am fan of this kind of work which leverage and share useful features with open source communities anyway
14:22:22 <ruan__he> gcb, I totally agree with you. That's why we propose a hook at the first time, and then we can test the policy compatibility
14:22:58 <ruan__he> only discussion without code cannot move on the policy topic
14:23:15 <gcb> ruan__he: we need figure out more details and collect inputs from others before implement it
14:24:17 <ruan__he> there is a prototype proposed by Mirantis: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/237521/
14:24:24 <gcb> ruan__he: I would encourage oslo team review your spec review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/492543/
14:24:57 <ruan__he> we need to re
14:25:18 <ruan__he> we need to re-discuss this topic in the next week's meeting?
14:26:18 <gcb> ruan__he: we aslo consider how to migrate policy.json based implements to external PDP, anyway I will add comments in your oslo-specs review
14:27:01 <ruan__he> for me, these 2 are in parallel
14:27:47 <gcb> ruan__he: do you mean they work at the same time ?
14:27:51 <amotoki> ruan__he: (just for confirmation) what are 'these 2'?
14:28:16 <amotoki> reviews 237521 and 492543?
14:28:33 <ruan__he> no, not at the same time, either policy.json or external engine
14:29:17 <ruan__he> 237521 is only for your information as a prototype, in 492543 we would like to provide a generic hook
14:30:13 <gcb> ruan__he, Is it possible that neutron uses policy.json way but nova use external PDP way
14:31:26 <ruan__he> gcb, I'll try to think about it. cannot answer you now
14:32:03 <zxy> Are external engines global for other services?
14:32:29 <ruan__he> zxy, what does global mean?
14:34:03 <zxy> For example, Nova and neutron get the same policy?
14:35:31 <ruan__he> from the external policy engine side, admin can firstly setup a global policy, and then the policy engine will translate it into the policy for each service
14:36:31 <gcb> ruan__he, what I expect is that  new way to access policy engine is optional without changing default behavior and provide good document to describe the new way and consider the deployment change
14:37:27 <ruan__he> we share the same idea
14:37:39 <amotoki> I think it is a kind of translation or conversion. what we need is some compat way to provide policies to individual services
14:38:31 <amotoki> it does not matter a lot how "global" policies are defined (as policy consumers)
14:38:45 <zxy> ruan__he,
14:38:45 <zxy> That's a good idea, but you need to consider the mapping with other service action
14:38:47 <gcb> amotoki: ++
14:39:24 <ruan__he> we have testes with Nova and Swift, it works well
14:39:56 <amotoki> ruan__he: it sounds a good startline
14:40:53 <ruan__he> if you agree, we can do in 2 steps: first integrate the hook, second test different policy mechanism (translation, one policy per service)
14:42:11 <gcb> ruan__he: you also need consider how to generate all policies automatically.  like ok, second test different policy mechanism (translation, one policy per service)
14:42:58 <gcb> sorry  I mean https://github.com/openstack/nova/commit/5e38fa3cb5ae850dcf2bb251b4098220424a6ed6
14:44:10 <ruan__he> this depends more on different external policy engine
14:44:14 <amotoki> we set "in-code policy definition" as our community goal for Pike, so I think we can generalize our current policies and it will help your thought, ruan__he
14:44:29 <amotoki> s/Pike/Queens/
14:45:31 <ruan__he> as your opinion, it is possible to add the hood for Queen?
14:45:53 <gcb> ruan__he:  generally  I like the idea  we need approve your oslo-specs review then we can review your implement code
14:46:28 <gcb> ruan__he: I'm not sure
14:48:11 <amotoki> i'm not sure either, but i think you have a chance to have a hook? which provides policies compatibile with the current one
14:48:25 <gcb> the time is tight,  we can discuss more on next weekly meeting if we need
14:48:31 <ruan__he> it would be great if we can have it in Queen, then we can start working on the policy engine as we discuss
14:49:36 <gcb> ruan__he: is that okay ?
14:49:49 <ruan__he> yes, ok for me
14:50:26 <gcb> #topic Open discussion
14:51:14 <gcb> I just nominate  Andy Smith as oslo.messaging core reviewer, please vote for +1/-1
14:51:29 <gcb> that's the only thing I want to raise
14:52:35 <gcb> ruan__he, amotoki : continue your discussion in openstack-oslo if we need :-)
14:52:46 <lpetrut> hey guys, since we're now at the open discussion topic, any chance someone could look over this change? https://review.openstack.org/#/c/492081/ we're having issues with exec calls on Windows.
14:53:36 <amotoki> gcb: ruan__he: thanks. i have no topic around policies at now.
14:53:53 <gcb> lpetrut: thanks for addressing my comment, will look at  it tomorrow
14:54:15 <gcb> amotoki: thanks for your input
14:54:29 <lpetrut> gcb: sure, thanks
14:55:57 <gcb> any topics ?
14:56:09 <gcb> we have last 5 minute :-)
14:59:12 <gcb> thanks everyone
14:59:22 <gcb> #endmeeting