05:30:15 <gongysh> #startmeeting tacker
05:30:16 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Apr 19 05:30:15 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is gongysh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
05:30:17 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
05:30:19 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'tacker'
05:30:32 <janki> gongysh, tbh hi
05:30:43 <tbh> hi janki
05:30:43 <gongysh> #topic roll call
05:31:05 <janki> o/
05:31:11 <gongysh> who are you guys here for tacker meeting?
05:31:18 <gongysh> hi, janki tbh
05:31:24 <tbh> o/
05:31:27 <YanXing_an> o/
05:31:28 <sridhar_ram> o/
05:31:38 <tung_doan> o/
05:32:04 <gongysh> 6 of us.
05:32:27 <gongysh> #topic BP
05:32:48 <gongysh> for the vim rechability monitor
05:32:57 <gongysh> I am trying to fix it via mistral
05:33:13 <gongysh> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/457140/
05:33:24 <gongysh> it is still in progress.
05:33:39 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: +1 for a mistral based approach !
05:33:49 <gongysh> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/457843/
05:34:28 <gongysh> since we will use mistral lots, I think we need to pull up mistral related codes into a top dir.
05:34:54 <gongysh> tung_doan, you said it is not good for separating vnfo and vnfm. I don't think so.
05:35:43 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, yes, I agree not to introduce more third party component, such as zookeeper if we can do on current components.
05:36:08 <sridhar_ram> tung_doan: gongysh: what is the context for such a statement - nfvo & vnfm separation?
05:36:15 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: ack!
05:36:40 <gongysh> tung_doan, do you have any thing to say about 'seprate nfvo and vnfm"?
05:36:53 <tung_doan> gongysh: Mistral is one of openstack drivers, I just think we should consider where we should place mistral driver :)
05:37:45 <gongysh> tung_doan, mistral will be a part of tacker, not a driver.
05:38:02 <gongysh> we have vim driver, not workflow driver.
05:38:04 <sridhar_ram> tung_doan: gongysh: we need to clearly differentiate what belong to VIM driver and what is tacker's functional dependency
05:38:22 <sridhar_ram> mistral is tacker's functional dependency (just like keystone)
05:38:31 <trinaths> o/
05:38:37 <sridhar_ram> it has nothing to do with target VIM driver ..
05:38:49 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, yes, it is so at least until now.
05:38:57 <sridhar_ram> currently the code is poorly organized .. hence the confusion
05:39:03 <tung_doan> sridhar_ram: gongysh : ok. got it
05:39:35 <sridhar_ram> i started an attempt to cleanup in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/450487/
05:39:51 <sridhar_ram> .. but need to find some time to finish that effort
05:40:21 <gongysh> this is good.
05:40:49 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, you should push a new patch at midnight. :)
05:41:05 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: :)
05:41:25 <gongysh> tung_doan, what is your progress on mistral for vnf policy?
05:42:08 <gongysh> tung_doan, hi
05:42:29 <tung_doan> gongysh: i still look into this feature: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/mistral-specs/specs/newton/approved/event-notification-trigger.html
05:43:04 <gongysh> tung_doan, ok, if it is complex, you can put a spec on it.
05:43:18 <tung_doan> gongysh: yes. thanks :)
05:43:42 <gongysh> also I am thinking about our customized 'mistral action' in tacker.
05:44:21 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: for what purpose ?
05:44:27 <gongysh> I think one principle is: not use db connection in action code since the action code is running at mistral engine.
05:44:58 <gongysh> sridhar_ram,   to use mistral, means we need to have our own actions.
05:45:22 <gongysh> sridhar_ram https://review.openstack.org/#/c/457140/2/tacker/mistral/mistralactions/pingaction.py
05:45:25 <sridhar_ram> i get that, is it intended for scaling, respawn, etc?
05:46:05 <gongysh> sridhar_ram,  https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/mistral-specs/specs/newton/approved/event-notification-trigger.html
05:46:26 <gongysh> tung_doan is looking into it to see if vnf policy can use this mistral feature.
05:46:44 <sridhar_ram> okay, good.. i like the approach..
05:46:53 <tung_doan> gongysh: +1
05:47:08 <gongysh> ok,  move to next topic
05:47:17 <gongysh> YanXing_an, hi
05:47:26 <YanXing_an> gongysh, hi
05:47:34 <gongysh> I have seen you have updated the barbican spec.
05:47:43 <YanXing_an> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445543/
05:48:23 <gongysh> I think it is almost done. we can get it merged soon.
05:48:55 <gongysh> since dharmendra kushwaha is not online, sridhar_ram, can you review it?
05:49:06 <gongysh> I can give my +2.
05:49:21 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: will review.. looks close to me
05:49:32 <YanXing_an> During coding, i can update the merged spec later?
05:49:44 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, thanks
05:49:46 <YanXing_an> if something changes
05:50:11 <gongysh> YanXing_an, no need to update the spec, spec is just drafting overview.
05:50:40 <gongysh> we allow some gap between spec and implementation.
05:51:12 <YanXing_an> gongysh, got it.
05:51:25 <gongysh> storage BP
05:52:00 <gongysh> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/453442/
05:52:14 <gongysh> is zhou zhihong online?
05:52:32 <YanXing_an> ZhouZhihong is on business, he will update the patch soon according the review comments
05:52:34 <gongysh> that spec is not updated last few days.
05:52:54 <gongysh> API spec
05:52:58 <gongysh> janki,
05:53:11 <gongysh> I have see your first draft framework
05:53:41 <gongysh> sorry,  it is from diga
05:53:43 <gongysh> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/442887/
05:53:55 <gongysh> it is very basic.
05:54:04 <janki> gongysh, Mine is containarization one
05:54:04 <gongysh> need more work.
05:54:18 <gongysh> janki, do you have a spec on it?
05:55:04 <janki> gongysh, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/397233/
05:55:39 <janki> gongysh, need to update it. WIll do it this week
05:55:40 <gongysh> janki, wow, a lot of reviews.
05:55:48 <gongysh> janki, thanks
05:56:03 <gongysh> janki, can you move it into pike?
05:56:26 <janki> gongysh, ya. will give it best shot
05:56:34 <janki> when is the pike release?
05:56:45 <sridhar_ram> janki: try reducing the scope ..
05:56:56 <sridhar_ram> .. it will help to make it to pike
05:57:05 <janki> sridhar_ram, as in?
05:57:20 <gongysh> janki, p3 is on July
05:57:26 <janki> I am currently targetting just spawning vnf as container. no scaling or anything
05:57:28 <gongysh> 24
05:57:46 <janki> gongysh, good amount of time in hand. I will do it
05:57:47 <sridhar_ram> janki: make some assumptions - just VDU support using Heat
05:57:48 <gongysh> janki, but you should think about the scaling.
05:58:07 <janki> gongysh, scaling can come in second iteration
05:58:09 <gongysh> to avoid later large redo.
05:58:42 <sridhar_ram> the design shd factoring in things like scaling but i think implementation should experiment with limited scope to make it
05:58:57 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, +1
05:59:29 <tung_doan> sridhar_ram: agree.  i hope to see this feature in pike
05:59:29 <gongysh> lets move to next topic
05:59:40 <gongysh> #topic bugs
06:00:04 <gongysh> I thing I ran into a bug which causes all functional test fail.
06:00:28 <gongysh> the trial fix is at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/457852/
06:01:00 <gongysh> it seem devstack removs the 5000 port?
06:01:11 <gongysh> but I need to watch more.
06:01:38 <gongysh> do you guys have any other bugs to talk about?
06:02:14 <sridhar_ram> vim-update fix from trinaths
06:02:37 <trinaths> yes, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/449956/
06:02:43 <gongysh> trinaths it is a long story
06:02:52 <trinaths> gongysh: very long story
06:03:11 <trinaths> also, the BP, https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455188/
06:03:13 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: gongysh: let's write an ending to that story here :)
06:03:46 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: :)
06:04:06 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, please start with your ideas
06:04:18 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: gongysh: bottomline - we need to support update of all attrs except auth_url
06:04:44 <sridhar_ram> name/desc/is_default will result in local db level update / validation
06:05:04 <sridhar_ram> anything more shd result in register-vim
06:05:48 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: then, will this bug also, redirects to vim-config.yaml validation.
06:06:40 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: yes, it needs to .. it seems the above logic is poorly implemented and needs to be fixed.
06:07:03 <sridhar_ram> it is better to fix all vim-update bugs as part of this
06:07:48 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, agree, we should make the vim-update works just as the api defined.
06:07:53 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: okay. Let have vim-update bugs detailed of their issues and be fixed. that way we can have certain scope of fixes and reviews.
06:08:32 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: thanks.. didn't mean to do a scope-creep :)  but this will help us all to knock this one off
06:08:49 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: agree.
06:09:30 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: we need to include deep_update modification to this commit ?
06:09:39 <gongysh> YanXing_an, seems jimmy is not here.
06:10:10 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: i'm fine removing it as long as the original functional intent as i described is taken care
06:10:37 <gongysh> some vnffg bugs are still hanging there.
06:10:40 <YanXing_an> gongysh, jimmy is also on business for long time
06:10:59 <tung_doan> gongysh: sridhar_ram: scaling and monitoring are not working now. The reason is tosca-parser was released last week
06:10:59 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: ok. we need to move all the changes from nfvo_db to nfvo_plugin.?
06:11:00 <gongysh> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/451827/
06:11:24 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: yes, let's consolidate validation in nfvo_plugin
06:11:40 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: okay. agree.
06:12:10 <gongysh> YanXing_an, could you have a look at this patch?
06:13:22 <YanXing_an> gongysh: i will look at this patch
06:13:31 <gongysh> ok, thanks
06:13:38 <gongysh> tbh, hi
06:13:48 <gongysh> about ns with vnffg bp
06:14:05 <trinaths> gongysh: sridhar_ram: this BP requires your review. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455188/
06:14:34 <tbh> I haven't checked that gongysh  assuming dkushuwaha looking into it
06:14:36 <gongysh> tbh,  aren't you work with dharmendra kushwaha?
06:14:51 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: i'm already on it .. please see the email thread in ML: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115601.html
06:14:52 <tbh> gongysh, not yet, I will look into it
06:15:15 <sridhar_ram> jay has some suggestion .. that i latched on .. please see the email thread
06:15:34 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: yes. With the ML discussion, I have updated the BP.
06:16:02 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: cool.. you are fast! will take a look
06:17:19 <trinaths> sridhar_ram: I'm observing the ML and doing the changes as appropriate. Once the BP is approved, I can start the coding. planning to target some command-plugins to P-3.
06:17:38 <sridhar_ram> trinaths: sounds good ..
06:17:54 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, who is responding in the mail?
06:18:18 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: what do you think about the 'openstack vnf'  suggestion? It is a reasonable compromise IMO
06:18:21 <gongysh> who is Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com ?
06:18:29 <trinaths> I need gongysh to bless me for https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455188/
06:18:50 <gongysh> I am thinking if he knows what is vnf, what is nfv.
06:19:02 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: Jay Pipes .. OpenStack veteran, ex-TC member... nova contributor
06:19:10 <trinaths> gongysh: https://launchpad.net/~jaypipes
06:19:18 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, he is not from nfv domain.
06:20:04 <gongysh> all guys know SDN & NFV, not SDN & VNF.
06:20:06 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: he is quite knowledgable in NFV .. though we significantly disagree with him on few things .. in a healthy way :)
06:20:31 <gongysh> using vnf as prefix, it is narrowing our project's scope.
06:20:40 <gongysh> we are doing nfv, not vnf.
06:20:59 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: the CLI keyword doesn't determine our project's scope
06:21:32 <sridhar_ram> keep in mind the idea with OSC is to make openstack behave as "one product" using all the features coming from different projects
06:22:13 <sridhar_ram> the keyword just determines the "resource" that is being created using tacker project ..
06:22:33 <sridhar_ram> vnf, collection of vnfs, graph on top of vnfs, etc.
06:22:34 <gongysh> sridhar_ram,   osc commands are what users are see  what our tacker does.
06:23:14 <gongysh> all commands are 'vnf xxx', it seems we are doing vnf, not nfv.
06:23:29 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: yes, for demo purposes .. but in real world deployments OSS/BSS will invoke Tacker API
06:24:23 <gongysh> we have to vote at next meeting
06:24:36 <sridhar_ram> gongysh: it doesn't negate us in any way we are doing NFV by using vnf keyword
06:25:19 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, I even cannot know what is mean by 'vnf service'
06:25:51 <diga> sorry got late
06:26:25 <gongysh> all our tacker documents and industry standards is network service, not vnf service.
06:26:32 <sridhar_ram> gongysh:  it is just the restriction coming from being an openstack citizen
06:26:57 <gongysh> ok, let move it to tacker channel.
06:27:10 <gongysh> #topic open discussion
06:27:27 <gongysh> we have 3 mins.
06:27:31 <sridhar_ram> what is the plan for tacker related activities in openstack boston summit?
06:27:47 <sridhar_ram> i'm still tentative attending the summit :(
06:27:47 <diga> I have started pushing patches on api-framework branch, please take a look at it
06:27:54 <gongysh> sridhar_ram, we have a forum room booked for us.
06:28:02 <diga> I have changed the directory structure for API
06:28:15 <sridhar_ram> who is planning to attend the summit?
06:28:21 <gongysh> me
06:28:55 <diga> I am not able to make it this time
06:28:59 <sridhar_ram> anyone else ?
06:29:24 <sridhar_ram> i guess rest is all waiting to go to australia ;-)
06:30:00 <gongysh> if just me is on the summit, I have to cancel the room.
06:30:34 <gongysh> diga, I will put my eyes on the api patches.
06:30:45 <gongysh> #endmeetings
06:30:49 <diga> gongysh: ok
06:30:49 <gongysh> #endmeeting