Open Stack

I do agree with need to sometime to recovery from HK and get the meetings
started next week!

Edgar

On 11/13/13 9:57 AM, "Kyle Mestery (kmestery)" <kmestery at cisco.com> wrote:

>On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Stephen Wong <s3wong at midokura.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kyle,
>> 
>>    So no meeting this Thursday?
>> 
>I am inclined to skip this week's meeting due to the fact I haven't heard
>many
>replies yet. I think a good starting point for people would be to review
>the
>BP [1] and Design Document [2] and provide feedback where appropriate.
>We should start to formalize what the APIs will look like at next week's
>meeting,
>and the Design Document has a first pass at this.
>
>Thanks,
>Kyle
>
>[1] 
>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/group-based-policy-abstract
>ion
>[2] 
>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIru
>pCD9E/edit?usp=sharing
>
>> Thanks,
>> - Stephen
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery)
>> <kmestery at cisco.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Stein, Manuel (Manuel)"
>>><manuel.stein at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Kyle,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm afraid your meeting vanished from the Meetings page [2] when user
>>>>amotiki reworked neutron meetings ^.^
>>>> Is the meeting for Thu 1600 UTC still on?
>>>> 
>>> Ack, thanks for the heads up here! I have re-added the meeting. I only
>>>heard
>>> back from one other person other than yourself, so at this point I'm
>>>inclined
>>> to wait until next week to hold our first meeting unless I hear back
>>>from others.
>>> 
>>>> A few heads-up questions (couldn't attend the HK design summit Friday
>>>>meeting):
>>>> 
>>>> 1) In the summit session Etherpad [3], ML2 implementation mentions
>>>>insertion of arbitrary metadata to hint to underlying implementation.
>>>>Is that (a) the plug-ing reporting its policy-bound realization? (b)
>>>>the user further specifying what should be used? (c) both? Or (d) none
>>>>of that but just some arbitrary message of the day?
>>>> 
>>> I believe that would be (a).
>>> 
>>>> 2) Would policies _always_ map to the old Neutron entities?
>>>> E.g. when I have policies in place, can I query related network/port,
>>>>subnet/address, router elements on the API or are there no equivalents
>>>>created? Would the logical topology created under the policies be
>>>>exposed otherwise? for e.g. monitoring/wysiwyg/troubleshoot purposes.
>>>> 
>>> No, this is up to the plugin/MechanismDriver implementation.
>>> 
>>>> 3) Do the chain identifier in your policy rule actions match to
>>>>"Service Chain UUID" in Service Insertion, Chaining and API [4]
>>>> 
>>> That's one way to look at this, yes.
>>> 
>>>> 4) Are you going to describe L2 services the way group policies work?
>>>>I mean, why would I need a LoadBalancer or Firewall instance before I
>>>>can insert it between two groups when all that load
>>>>balancing/firewalling requires is nothing but a policy for group
>>>>communication itself? - regardless the service instance used to carry
>>>>out the service.
>>>> 
>>> These are things I'd like to discuss at the IRC meeting each week. The
>>>goal
>>> would be to try and come up with some actionable items we can drive
>>>towards
>>> in both Icehouse-1 and Icehouse-2. Given how close the closing of
>>>Icehouse-1
>>> is, we need to focus on this very fast if we want to have a measurable
>>>impact in
>>> Icehouse-1.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kyle
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Best, Manuel
>>>> 
>>>> [2] 
>>>>https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#Neutron_Group_Policy_Sub-Team_
>>>>Meeting
>>>> [3] 
>>>>https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/Group_Based_Policy_Abstraction_for_Neu
>>>>tron
>>>> [4] 
>>>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fmCWpCxAN4g5txmCJVmBDt02GYew2kvyRsh
>>>>0Wl3YF2U/edit#
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Kyle Mestery (kmestery) [mailto:kmestery at cisco.com]
>>>>> Sent: Montag, 11. November 2013 19:41
>>>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Group-based Policy
>>>>> Sub-team Meetings
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi folks! Hope everyone had a safe trip back from Hong Kong.
>>>>> Friday afternoon in the Neutron sessions we discussed the
>>>>> "Group-based Policy Abstraction" BP [1]. It was decided we
>>>>> would try to have a weekly IRC meeting to drive out further
>>>>> requirements with the hope of coming up with a list of
>>>>> actionable tasks to begin working on by December.
>>>>> I've tentatively set the meeting [2] for Thursdays at 1600
>>>>> UTC on the #openstack-meeting-alt IRC channel. If there are
>>>>> serious conflicts with this day and time, please speak up
>>>>> soon. Otherwise, we'll host our first meeting on Thursday this week.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Kyle
>>>>> 
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/group-based-pol
>>>> icy-abstraction
>>>>> [2]
>>>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings#Neutron_Group_Policy_
>>>>> Sub-Team_Meeting
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev