<html><body><p>Hi Kurt,<br><br>There are 2 discussion points regarding volume attach/detach support:<br>
<ol type="1"><li>Whether it is a common implementation that public cloud does not allow users to attach/detach volume to an instant.
<li>Volume detach/attach support is via Nova or Cinder.</ol><br>Your note indicates that your public cloud does allow users to attach/detach volume to an instant. Seems like CT Cloud Platform [1] (an other public cloud) also supports this feature since it passed the 2017.08 guideline.<br><br>[1] <a href="https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/china-telecom/ct-cloud-platform">https://www.openstack.org/marketplace/public-clouds/china-telecom/ct-cloud-platform</a><br><br>Catherine Diep<br><font size="2" color="#800080">----- Forwarded by Catherine Cuong Diep/San Jose/IBM</font><font size="2" color="#800080"> on 01/19/2017 11:22 AM</font><font size="2" color="#800080"> -----</font><br><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">From: </font><font size="2">Kurt Garloff <t-systems@garloff.de></font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">To: </font><font size="2">interop-wg@lists.openstack.org, Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@gmail.com>, Mark Voelker <mvoelker@vmware.com></font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Cc: </font><font size="2">"interop-wg@lists.openstack.org" <interop-wg@lists.openstack.org></font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Date: </font><font size="2">01/19/2017 11:01 AM</font><br><font size="2" color="#5F5F5F">Subject: </font><font size="2">Re: [Interop-wg] Question regarding DefCore 2016.08</font><br><hr width="100%" size="2" align="left" noshade style="color:#8091A5; "><br><br><br><font size="4">Hi,<br><br>Just to provide a data point. <br><br>OTC would currently have the same issue. Volume detach/attach is supported via nova but not cinder.<br>I do not see a fundamental reason why this would need to be that way though in our public cloud, currently, but we just started to investigate... <br><br>Best, <br>-- <br>Kurt Garloff<br><br>T-SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL GMBH<br>IT Div | Global IT Ops | OTC<br>Kurt Garloff<br>OpenStack ☁ Architect<br>+49 228 181 45646 (Bonn, PH51, G010)<br>+49 1515 1551 744 (Mobile)<br>E-Mail: kurt.garloff@t-systems.com<br>E-Mail: t-systems@garloff.de</font><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF"><br></font></u><a href="http://t-systems.com/"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">http://t-systems.com</font></u></a><font size="4">/<br><br>Compulsory statement §35a GmbHG: </font><a href="https://www.t-systems.com/compulsory-statement"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">https://www.t-systems.com/compulsory-statement</font></u></a><font size="4"><br></font><br><font size="4">Am 19. Januar 2017 16:42:28 MEZ schrieb Zhipeng Huang <zhipengh512@gmail.com>:</font><ul><font size="4">Hi Mark,</font><br><br><font size="4">Thank you very much for the detailed response, I will raise a flag for the network-l2-CRUD problem.</font><br><br><font size="4">Regarding our volumes_action problem, I think the rationale for our choice of implementation is that as a public cloud provider, operations such as mount/unmount are ok to be provided to the users, but operations like "attach, detach, reserve" are better used internally (hiding behind for example "Elastice Volume Service" which is provided by the public cloud). As I understand this is not a deliberate bypassing of the basic defcore requirements, but rather a common public cloud implementation choice.</font><br><br><font size="4">Would the above explanation sound reasonable to you ? </font><br><br><font size="4">On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Mark Voelker <</font><a href="mailto:mvoelker@vmware.com" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">mvoelker@vmware.com</font></u></a><font size="4">> wrote:</font><br><font size="4">><br>> On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:31 PM, Zhipeng Huang <</font><a href="mailto:zhipengh512@gmail.com"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">zhipengh512@gmail.com</font></u></a><font size="4">> wrote:<br>><br>> Resend the information about our problems to the list.<br><br>Thanks for sending this.<br><br>><br>> The problem we found is regarding networking part in 2016.08 and probably also in 2017.01, specifically:<br>><br>> 1. networks-l2-CRUD:<br>> • tempest.api.network.test_ports.PortsTestJSON.test_create_port_with_no_securitygroups<br>> • tempest.api.network.test_ports.PortsTestJSON.test_create_show_delete_port_user_defined_mac<br>><br>> Our problem is that in our public cloud implementation, we mandate that port creation must have security groups designated, and at the moment all the mac address are pre-allocated and not up to the user to define.<br><br>While I’m not aware of other clouds that enforce such restrictions, I could see an argument being made for this on security grounds and it seems like a reasonable discussion for us as a community to have. I’d suggest submitting a flag request on these tests if you’d like to get that conversation going. The process for doing so is described here (please let us know if you need help):<br></font><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF"><br></font></u><a href="http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/defcore/tree/HACKING.rst#n85" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/defcore/tree/HACKING.rst#n85</font></u></a><font size="4"><br><br>><br>><br>> 2. volumes_action related rules:<br>> • tempest.api.volume.test_volumes_actions.VolumesV2ActionsTest.test_attach_detach_volume_to_instance<br>> • tempest.api.volume.test_volumes_actions.VolumesV2ActionsTest.test_get_volume_attachment<br>> • tempest.api.volume.test_volumes_actions.VolumesV2ActionsTest.test_reserve_unreserve_volume<br>> • tempest.api.volume.test_volumes_actions.VolumesV2ActionsTest.test_volume_bootable<br>> • tempest.api.volume.test_volumes_actions.VolumesV2ActionsTest.test_volume_readonly_update<br>> The problem for us is that in our public cloud implementation, volumes_action related operations are only internally used for inter-module calls (e.g between Nova and Cinder) or Admin ops, but not for directly usage by the tenants/users.<br><br><br>Things like attaching and detaching a volume from an instance or getting attachment status of a volume feel like really basic operations that most users of OpenStack clouds (and most clients/toolkits they’re using) would expect to be present and functioning. I don’t think I’ve encountered other clouds that don’t support these fundamental volume operations. This would lead me to think that your cloud is, in fact, not interoperable with most other OpenStack Powered clouds in this respect. It seems like an implementation choice you’ve made to deliberately not expose block storage functionality, which differs substantially from the choices of other OpenStack Powered clouds (public and private). While I’d like to understand the rationale behind that choice, this feels like a case where I’d have a hard time being convinced that the tests should be flagged.<br><br>At Your Service,<br><br>Mark T. Voelker</font><br><font size="4"><br>><br>><br>> In summary our problems have to do with our public cloud requirements, i'm not sure if these are reasonable questions for defcore guideline as well as if these are suit for flagging ?<br>><br>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Chris Hoge <</font><a href="mailto:chris@openstack.org"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">chris@openstack.org</font></u></a><font size="4">> wrote:<br>> The 2017.01 guideline will be going to the board for final approval<br>> at the end of this month. 2016.08 is finalized, but problematic<br>> tests can be flagged. We have our weekly working group<br>> meetings on Wednesdays, and we’d be happy to consider<br>> isses as part of our agenda. You can add an agenda item to the<br>> meeting etherpad:<br>><br>> </font><a href="https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreRoble.9" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DefCoreRoble.9</font></u></a><font size="4"><br>><br>> It’s also useful to raise issues on this mailing list to give the wider<br>> community a chance to comment.<br>><br>> Thanks,<br>> Chris Hoge<br>> Interop Engineer<br>> OpenStack Foundation<br>><br>><br>>> On Jan 17, 2017, at 6:53 AM, Zhipeng Huang <</font><a href="mailto:zhipengh512@gmail.com"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">zhipengh512@gmail.com</font></u></a><font size="4">> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Hi team,<br>>><br>>> Is there still time for us to provide feedback for the 2016.08 defcore guideline or it is too late ?<br>>><br>>> --<br>>> Zhipeng (Howard) Huang<br>>><br>>> Standard Engineer<br>>> IT Standard & Patent/IT Prooduct Line<br>>> Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd<br>>> Email: </font><a href="mailto:huangzhipeng@huawei.com"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">huangzhipeng@huawei.com</font></u></a><font size="4"><br>>> Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen<br>>><br>>> (Previous)<br>>> Research Assistant<br>>> Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2<br>>> University of California, Irvine<br>>> Email: </font><a href="mailto:zhipengh@uci.edu"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">zhipengh@uci.edu</font></u></a><font size="4"><br>>> Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402<br>>><br>>> OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado<br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> Interop-wg mailing list<br>>> </font><a href="mailto:Interop-wg@lists.openstack.org"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">Interop-wg@lists.openstack.org</font></u></a><font size="4"><br>>> </font><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/interop-wg" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/interop-wg</font></u></a><font size="4"><br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> --<br>> Zhipeng (Howard) Huang<br>><br>> Standard Engineer<br>> IT Standard & Patent/IT Prooduct Line<br>> Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd<br>> Email: </font><a href="mailto:huangzhipeng@huawei.com"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">huangzhipeng@huawei.com</font></u></a><font size="4"><br>> Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen<br>><br>> (Previous)<br>> Research Assistant<br>> Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2<br>> University of California, Irvine<br>> Email: </font><a href="mailto:zhipengh@uci.edu"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">zhipengh@uci.edu</font></u></a><font size="4"><br>> Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402<br>><br>> OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Interop-wg mailing list<br>> </font><a href="mailto:Interop-wg@lists.openstack.org"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">Interop-wg@lists.openstack.org</font></u></a><font size="4"><br>> </font><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/interop-wg" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/interop-wg</font></u></a><font size="4"><br></font><br><font size="4"><br></font><br><br><font size="4">-- </font><br><font size="4">Zhipeng (Howard) Huang</font><br><br><font size="4">Standard Engineer</font><br><font size="4">IT Standard & Patent/IT Prooduct Line</font><br><font size="4">Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd</font><br><font size="4">Email: </font><a href="mailto:huangzhipeng@huawei.com" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">huangzhipeng@huawei.com</font></u></a><br><font size="4">Office: Huawei Industrial Base, Longgang, Shenzhen</font><br><br><font size="4">(Previous)</font><br><font size="4">Research Assistant</font><br><font size="4">Mobile Ad-Hoc Network Lab, Calit2</font><br><font size="4">University of California, Irvine</font><br><font size="4">Email: </font><a href="mailto:zhipengh@uci.edu" target="_blank"><u><font size="4" color="#0000FF">zhipengh@uci.edu</font></u></a><br><font size="4">Office: Calit2 Building Room 2402</font><br><br><font size="4">OpenStack, OPNFV, OpenDaylight, OpenCompute Aficionado</font><tt>_______________________________________________<br>Interop-wg mailing list<br>Interop-wg@lists.openstack.org<br></tt><tt><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/interop-wg">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/interop-wg</a></tt><tt><br></tt><br></ul><BR>
</body></html>