<html>
<head>
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<p
style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0 0 1em 0;">Would
there not be value in requiring capabilities even in the absence of tests?</p>
<p
style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0 0 1em 0;">It
is in essence what we do today. We require nova and swift and the exposing
of the associated APIs. That's the status quo. </p>
<p
style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0 0 1em 0;">If
we think there's value in ensuring something is there, we can definitely
enforce such a requirement in license contracts in the absence of tests,
even though no doubt having the tests is ideal. <br><br></p>
<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif;">
<p
style="color: black; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; margin: 10pt 0;">On
September 12, 2014 3:09:47 PM <Rob_Hirschfeld@Dell.com> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;"><div
class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">Doug, You are
correct. Keystone has no capabilities defined in Havana.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D">I believe Josh is trying
to make a different point > Keystone WOULD have core capabilities if it
had the tests. In that case, we’d had the same implementation
discussion for Keystone. If there were tests then
we’d be back into the same discussion about Capabilities with 100%
replacement. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_____replyseparator"></a><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Doug Hellmann [mailto:doug@doughellmann.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 12, 2014 1:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Joshua McKenty<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Hirschfeld, Rob; Russell Bryant;
Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Results from Community Meetings
> discussion/+1 about reconsidering Havana Swift as a core
capability<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sep 12, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Joshua McKenty <<a
href="mailto:joshua@pistoncloud.com">joshua@pistoncloud.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Just so I’m clear, Doug - you would therefore
also like to propose some designated sections for Keystone?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Based on comments from the meeting yesterday, I
thought we had no keystone tests, and so there wouldn’t be a need for
any designated sections. That’s not optimal, in my mind, because the
community did *build* a version of keystone for havana,
but if we don’t have the tests or have not required capabilities for
some other reason, then I am OK with ignoring the designated sections
question for havana. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If I misheard or that information about the tests was
incorrect, then we should apply the same criteria to keystone that
I’m proposing for Swift and either have some designated sections or
reconsider whether we include the capabilities.
In the keystone case, dropping the capabilities would seriously hinder our
ability to say that DefCore is describing an interoperable set of features,
since authentication is so pervasive, and so the resolution would need to
be thought through very carefully.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doug<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">--<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">Joshua
McKenty<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">Chief
Technology Officer<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">Piston
Cloud Computing, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">+1
(650) 242-5683<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">+1
(650) 283-6846<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><a
href="http://www.pistoncloud.com/">http://www.pistoncloud.com</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"">"Oh,
Westley, we'll never survive!"<br>
"Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever
has."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sep 12, 2014, at 11:35 AM, <<a
href="mailto:Rob_Hirschfeld@Dell.com">Rob_Hirschfeld@Dell.com</a>>
<<a
href="mailto:Rob_Hirschfeld@Dell.com">Rob_Hirschfeld@Dell.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Doug Hellmann [<a
href="mailto:doug@doughellmann.com">mailto:doug@doughellmann.com</a>]<br>
> The actual current proposal, if I understand correctly, is to require <br>
> the Swift APIs be provided, but not require the use of Swift’s
code to <br>
> do so. We may be converging on dropping the requirement of the APIs, <br>
> but I don’t think that’s settled.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The current Havana recommendation includes some Swift APIs; however, I
believe we should (and will ask the Board to) reconsider that based on
feedback I have been getting.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><br>
> I believe, and Rob please correct me if I misunderstood, that some <br>
> distros would also like to provide an OpenStack product that
doesn’t <br>
> include object storage in any way (neither Swift nor Ceph). I’m
not <br>
> especially inclined to care about that use case, but it’s out
there.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I don’t see distros doing omitting whole projects; however, more
integrated products or services have already proven that they will be more
selective. IMHO, that’s the market giving us critical feedback
and we should be careful in over fencing the market.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">_______________________________________________<br>
Defcore-committee mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org">Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Defcore-committee mailing list<br>
Defcore-committee@lists.openstack.org<br>
<a class="aqm-autolink aqm-autowrap"
href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/defcore-committee</a><br>
<br></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>