<html dir="ltr">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" id="owaParaStyle"></style>
</head>
<body fpstyle="1" ocsi="0">
<div style="direction: ltr;font-family: Tahoma;color: #000000;font-size: 10pt;">we are discussing the name in the #openstack-tricircle channel, if you are interested in naming a new project, please join. After name is decided, we can start to create regarding
folder, launchpad, etc..., then divide Tricircle project.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best Regards</div>
<div>Chaoyi Huang(joehuang)<br>
<div style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #000000; font-size: 16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF978480" style="direction: ltr;"><font face="Tahoma" size="2" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> joehuang<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 02 September 2016 11:19<br>
<b>To:</b> openstack-dev; mordred@inaugust.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [openstack-dev][tricircle]your proposal for the name of networking and gateway sub-projects<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000; font-size:10pt"><font size="3">I have some rough ideas about the name of gateway sub-project, for example, triangle, tridonut, tricookie etc, so that we can see that Tricircle and the new sub-project
are like sibling in OpenStack. And they often will be listed closely in order.</font>
<div><font size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="3">Your thoughts?</font></div>
<div><font size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="3">Best Regards</font></div>
<div><font size="3">Chaoyi Huang(joehuang)</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#000000; font-size:16px">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRpF462323" style="direction:ltr"><font face="Tahoma" size="2" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> joehuang<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 02 September 2016 10:22<br>
<b>To:</b> openstack-dev; mordred@inaugust.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [openstack-dev][tricircle]your proposal for the name of networking and gateway sub-projects<br>
</font><br>
</div>
<div></div>
<div>
<div style="direction:ltr; font-family:Tahoma; color:#000000; font-size:10pt">
<div><font size="3">Hello,</font></div>
<div><font size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="3">If we want to divide Tricircle into two sub-projects, your proposals for the name of sub-projects are welcome.</font></div>
<div><font size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="3">Because the Tricircle is applying big-tent application, and the networking part will be remained in the Tricircle repository, and continue the big-tent application. So if we change the networking sub-project name from "Tricircle" to another
one, we have to update a lots of places: from infra, to source code, to documentation, google docs, to wiki, etc, it's a huge work, and history background will also be lost, from this point of view, I proposal to remain current Tricircle repository name, but
shrink the Tricircle scope to cross Neutron networking automation. </font></div>
<div><font size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="3">And for gateway part, a new repository is required, new project name is more applicable, this is just my thoughts, would like to know your proposals.</font></div>
<div><font size="3"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="3">Best Regards</font></div>
<div><font size="3">Chaoyi Huang(joehuang)</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>________________________________________</div>
<div>From: joehuang</div>
<div>Sent: 01 September 2016 9:02</div>
<div>To: Monty Taylor; openstack-dev</div>
<div>Subject: RE: [openstack-dev][tricircle]How to address TCs concerns in Tricircle big-tent application</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hello, Monty,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you very much for your guide and encouragement, then let's move on this direction.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards</div>
<div>Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)</div>
<div>________________________________________</div>
<div>From: Monty Taylor [mordred@inaugust.com]</div>
<div>Sent: 01 September 2016 0:37</div>
<div>To: joehuang; openstack-dev</div>
<div>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev][tricircle]How to address TCs concerns in Tricircle big-tent application</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 08/31/2016 02:16 AM, joehuang wrote:</div>
<div>> Hello, team,</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> During last weekly meeting, we discussed how to address TCs concerns in</div>
<div>> Tricircle big-tent application. After the weekly meeting, the proposal</div>
<div>> was co-prepared by our</div>
<div>> contributors: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> The more doable way is to divide Tricircle into two independent and</div>
<div>> decoupled projects, only one of the projects which deal with networking</div>
<div>> automation will try to become an big-tent project, And Nova/Cinder</div>
<div>> API-GW will be removed from the scope of big-tent project application,</div>
<div>> and put them into another project:</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> *TricircleNetworking:* Dedicated for cross Neutron networking automation</div>
<div>> in multi-region OpenStack deployment, run without or with</div>
<div>> TricircleGateway. Try to become big-tent project in the current</div>
<div>> application of https://review.openstack.org/#/c/338796/.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Great idea.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> *TricircleGateway:* Dedicated to provide API gateway for those who need</div>
<div>> single Nova/Cinder API endpoint in multi-region OpenStack deployment,</div>
<div>> run without or with TricircleNetworking. Live as non-big-tent,</div>
<div>> non-offical-openstack project, just like Tricircle toady’s status. And</div>
<div>> not pursue big-tent only if the consensus can be achieved in OpenStack</div>
<div>> community, including Arch WG and TCs, then decide how to get it on board</div>
<div>> in OpenStack. A new repository is needed to be applied for this project.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>></div>
<div>> And consider to remove some overlapping implementation in Nova/Cinder</div>
<div>> API-GW for global objects like flavor, volume type, we can configure one</div>
<div>> region as master region, all global objects like flavor, volume type,</div>
<div>> server group, etc will be managed in the master Nova/Cinder service. In</div>
<div>> Nova API-GW/Cinder API-GW, all requests for these global objects will be</div>
<div>> forwarded to the master Nova/Cinder, then to get rid of any API</div>
<div>> overlapping-implementation.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> More information, you can refer to the proposal draft</div>
<div>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kpVo5rsL6p_rq9TvkuczjommJSsisDiKJiurbhaQg7E,</div>
<div>></div>
<div>> your thoughts are welcome, and let's have more discussion in this weekly</div>
<div>> meeting.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think this is a great approach Joe.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>