On Mon, 8 Apr 2019, Eric Fried wrote:
Does this have anything to do with the topic of separate projects owning different resource providers in the same tree? Where "owning" indicates responsibility for creation, positioning (i.e. where in the tree, who's the parent), and inventory management, but *not* allocations.
This is different: Multiple clouds, one placement. However, what you describe is probably a thing that warrants discussion. If you agree, stick it on the etherpad with these two paragraphs and I'll come around to it, eventually, in this process.
This was in the context of e.g. neutron owning bandwidth RPs, or cyborg owning FPGA RPs.
In Denver (possibly twice) we talked about the various actors actually needing to know this. I don't remember exactly why - was it only so that each actor knows not to stomp on providers it doesn't own? And is that a problem that needs a solution other than each actor just knowing which providers it's responsible for and leaving anything else alone?
-- Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ https://anticdent.org/ freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent