17:14:34 <s3wong> #startmeeting servicevm_device_manager
17:14:35 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Dec 17 17:14:34 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is s3wong. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:14:36 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
17:14:39 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'servicevm_device_manager'
17:15:10 <s3wong> #topic announcement
17:16:11 <s3wong> I don't think there is much to announce, other than Neutron SAD has passed
17:16:47 <s3wong> I noticed yamahata's spec for l3router vm was -2'ed by salv-orlando
17:17:30 <s3wong> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/105078/
17:17:47 <natarajk> s3wong: that's because spec is not needed for l2 and l3 plugins
17:18:03 <natarajk> s3wong: because of vendor plugin decomposition
17:18:13 <salv-orlando> natarajk: correct
17:18:37 <salv-orlando> but it also true that I'm evil and feel pleasure in giving -2s
17:19:06 <s3wong> natarajk: really? the comment seems to indicate that it lacks consensus and the topic has multiple blueprints that need to be consolidated
17:19:09 <SridharRamaswamy> salv-orlando: LOL
17:19:13 <natarajk> salv-orlando::)
17:20:13 <natarajk> s3wong: i just checked the spec. It is for modular L3 plugin. I haven't reviewed this yet
17:20:29 <s3wong> natarajk: sure
17:20:30 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: to me that specs reads a bit like flavor framework for vm based l3 router
17:21:03 <natarajk> s3wong: There was another spec for l3routervm plugin related to mccafee proposed by Isaku
17:21:06 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: the topic sounds like ML3 :-)
17:21:14 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: yep
17:21:33 <s3wong> natarajk: did that one get approved for Kilo? (do you have the link?)
17:21:46 <SridharRamaswamy> so i'm not sure if decomposition would help in this case
17:22:15 <natarajk> s3wong: the mccafee plugin should follow decomposition principle
17:22:39 <natarajk> s3wong: I haven't reviwed the Modular L3 plugin spec yet
17:22:48 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: is L3 service considered part of vendor driver, or service plugin?
17:23:00 <hareeshp> I am also not sure how will the vendor plugins for l3 are going forward
17:23:35 <natarajk> s3wong: L3ServicePlugin and reference implementation will be in-tree
17:23:42 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: salv-orlando: correct me if i'm wrong, the current plan is to thin out l3 plugin as well
17:23:56 <natarajk> s3wong: Vendor plugins that extend L3ServicePlugin should be out-of tree
17:24:25 <SridharRamaswamy> natarajk: exactly
17:24:30 <s3wong> natarajk: yes
17:25:08 <hareeshp> But vendor plugins for services are in the services repo,  right?
17:25:17 <natarajk> correct
17:25:33 <s3wong> natarajk: though I am curious to know if any vendor has implemented L3 Service only driver but has no Neutron core plugin implementation --- in that case, their L3ServicePlugin driver would remain in tree? :-)
17:25:35 <SridharRamaswamy> but l3 still belong in neutron-core
17:26:30 <s3wong> hareeshp: currently the service repos that were split are FW/LB/VPNaaS, so metering and L3Service remained to be part of Neutron repo
17:26:35 <hareeshp> So if they have a dependency on l3, there are three repos now
17:26:56 <salv-orlando> SridharRamaswamy: correct again
17:28:20 <s3wong> OK, let's move on then :-)
17:28:28 <SridharRamaswamy> salv-orlando: thx
17:28:41 <s3wong> #topic workflow discussion
17:30:00 <s3wong> did everyone get a chance to comment on the doc?
17:30:07 <s3wong> #link https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xs8TvEVMszzND5uoWTHtd1tJnu7105Ekgq9hxiyXABQ/edit
17:30:23 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: i provided some initial comments
17:30:37 <s3wong> Looks like the last edit was Dec 2nd, so probably not much :-)
17:31:22 <s3wong> I think once yamahata successfully migrates to US, we should have the webex session to talk about this
17:31:31 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: that document badly needs a diagram to illustrate the flow
17:31:38 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: thanks
17:32:10 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: as i've been asking earlier, we need a clear(er) separation of layers between service-vm-api and the users (l3 plugins, etc)
17:32:34 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: it does. TBH I still feel that the flow wasn't clear for the team in general
17:32:46 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: agreed
17:33:47 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: to me, Tacker should have the API for services (and users) to consume, and a plugin layer for different device/resource-mgmt to implement
17:34:43 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: agreed, but there was some confusion while discussing this during kilo summit.
17:35:05 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: so it will be better to document it and get everyone in the same page
17:35:15 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: yes, hence we need to add our thoughts in the document
17:35:49 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: can u help documenting that ? i can volunteer to throw in a diagram
17:35:56 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: I suspect the coming webex session would be emphasizing on the general use case and architecture/workflow of Tacker, based on that document
17:36:03 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: sure
17:36:58 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: I will add a section at the bottom, and I welcome any team members to express his/her opinion on how you think Tacke should be in the document
17:37:04 <s3wong> *Tacker
17:37:58 <s3wong> since we are at K-1 now, and we need to get some consensus on how to proceed and what to (try to) accomplish in Kilo timeframe
17:38:05 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: sounds good
17:38:34 <hareeshp> S3wong: agreed
17:38:52 <s3wong> so, please comment or update (by adding content) the document, and we can have discussion on email as well
17:39:04 <s3wong> hareeshp: do you have write access to the doc?
17:39:31 <vishwanathj> I will review the doc this week now that the SAD date has passed
17:39:37 <hareeshp> Not sure. Will check and let you know
17:39:44 <s3wong> vishwanathj: Thanks!
17:40:32 <hareeshp> Irc Using a phone now :p
17:40:45 <s3wong> I see that SridharRamaswamy, vishwanathj , and natarajk all have write access
17:41:17 <s3wong> so let's have discussion on doc, and consolidate our thoughts on there directly
17:41:45 <s3wong> hareeshp: seems like you were left out :-)
17:42:03 <hareeshp> Och!
17:42:10 <s3wong> hareeshp: do you want me to add you via your cisco email or gmail account?
17:42:26 <hareeshp> Use Gmail, that's more convenient
17:42:43 <s3wong> hareeshp: done :-)
17:43:00 <hareeshp> Less spam ☺
17:43:25 <SridharRamaswamy> while we at it .. i'd like to know the commit / review process for the tacker stackforge repo
17:43:36 <SridharRamaswamy> #link https://github.com/stackforge/tacker
17:43:45 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: it should be the same as Neutron
17:44:39 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: okay, Isaku or you have the approval privilege to merge a changeset ?
17:44:42 <s3wong> instead of neutron, the project is tacker
17:44:52 <s3wong> one example is here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121327/
17:45:01 <s3wong> this is for tacker-spec, but you get the idea :-)
17:45:44 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: sounds good, thanks
17:45:49 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: yes, yamagata, bobmel. and I all have +2/+A privileges
17:45:58 <s3wong> * yamahata
17:47:09 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: and though it is a stackforge project, we would still like to follow the same OpenStack procedure as (1) file spec, (2) get spec approved, then (3) post patches...etc
17:47:32 <SridharRamaswamy> s3wong: okay
17:47:37 <SridharRamaswamy> make sense
17:48:06 <s3wong> SridharRamaswamy: don't worry, we aren't as evil as neutron-cores :-)
17:48:17 <s3wong> (at least I hope we aren't) :-)
17:48:20 <SridharRamaswamy> LOL
17:48:50 <s3wong> #topic Open Discussions
17:49:05 <s3wong> anything else you guys want to bring up for this week?
17:49:26 <s3wong> next Wednesday is the 24th, do you guys still want to have a meeting?
17:49:49 <vishwanathj> I am out next week
17:49:58 <s3wong> vishwanathj: OK
17:49:58 <SridharRamaswamy> i'd vote to skip meeting next two weeks..
17:50:06 <vishwanathj> +1
17:50:14 <natarajk> +1
17:50:23 <s3wong> OK --- consensus reached!
17:50:24 <SridharRamaswamy> we can colloborate on google docs ..
17:50:36 <s3wong> we will reconvene in 2015
17:51:06 <s3wong> the next meeting will then be Jan. 7th
17:51:26 <vishwanathj> Happy holidays and a happy new year to all
17:52:08 <s3wong> Yes, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
17:52:34 <s3wong> Any other topic to discuss?
17:53:23 <s3wong> See you guys next year!
17:53:30 <s3wong> Please comment on the document
17:53:40 <vishwanathj> ok, bye
17:53:44 <s3wong> #endmeeting