Open Stack

On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:28 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>wrote:
>
>
> In order to make this happen, it looks like there are just a few bits that
> needs to be agreed upon, and I think they can be summarized as follows:
> - 'name' attributes and whether they should be mandatory. It looks like we
> all agree we want them, but it has to be decided whether
>    i) they should be unique or not.
>    ii) they should be mandatory or not.
> - 'public' attribute for networks. As we did not get negative feedback on
> the proposal, I am going to assume nobody has strong opinions against this
> decision.
>

I agree.  While its tempting to try and build something more generic, this
is a key use case we must handle in Folsom, and having a notion of an API
being 'public' seems analogous to something like a public disk image in
glance.


> - security group API. We have a blueprint open and targeted to F-3 (
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-security-groups).
> Personally I do not feel it is a good idea at this stage proposing them for
> the core v2 API in Folsom. Apart from the necessary discussion concerning
> the APIs, we will need support across all the plugins, which is hardly
> going to happen IMHO. If you have a different opinion, this is the right
> thread to shout it!
>     - NOTE: Leaving the security groups outside of Quantum core API also
> means that we *must* ensure Quantum still allows Nova to use its own
> firewall drivers.
> - L3 features (
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/quantum/+spec/quantum-l3-fwd-nat): among
> the various sub-blueprints in which this blueprint can be broken, there's
> one concerning APIs. As I have not followed the development of this
> particular blueprint, I'll leave it to Dan whether L3 & NAT APIs should be
> part of Folsom core.
>


At the summit we decided to keep the scope of the v2 "core" API to
essentially the combination of the quantum v1 API and the melange API.
 Additional items like configuring L3 forwarding, floating ips, and
security groups will be extensions.  I agree that for Folsom, it is likely
the case that most plugins will just stick with Nova security groups due to
a lack of time.



>
> From my perspective, the above list includes all the items concerning the
> Quantum v2 API which have not yet stabilized. Please do let me know if I
> forgot anything.
>

I'm sure more corner case discussions will pop-up, they always do.  For
example, while there's been some discussion on the topic, I think there's
still some work to be done with respect to batch operations, in particular,
their failure semantics.

Thanks for driving this.

Dan



>
> Thanks and have a good day,
> Salvatore
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack
> Post to     : netstack at lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Wendlandt
Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com
twitter: danwendlandt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20120717/f43a24e5/attachment.html>