Open Stack

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Robert Kukura <kukura at noironetworks.com>
wrote:

>  On 8/4/14, 4:27 PM, Mark McClain wrote:
>
> All-
>
> tl;dr
>
> * Group Based Policy API is the kind of experimentation we be should
> attempting.
> * Experiments should be able to fail fast.
> * The master branch does not fail fast.
> * StackForge is the proper home to conduct this experiment.
>
> The disconnect here is that the Neutron group-based policy sub-team that
> has been implementing this feature for Juno does not see this work as an
> experiment to gather data, but rather as an important innovative feature to
> put in the hands of early adopters in Juno and into widespread deployment
> with a stable API as early as Kilo.
>

> The group-based policy BP approved for Juno addresses the critical need
> for a more usable, declarative, intent-based interface for cloud
> application developers and deployers, that can co-exist with Neutron's
> current networking-hardware-oriented API and work nicely with all existing
> core plugins. Additionally, we believe that this declarative approach is
> what is needed to properly integrate advanced services into Neutron, and
> will go a long way towards resolving the difficulties so far trying to
> integrate LBaaS, FWaaS, and VPNaaS APIs into the current Neutron model.
>
> Like any new service API in Neutron, the initial group policy API release
> will be subject to incompatible changes before being declared "stable", and
> hence would be labeled "experimental" in Juno. This does not mean that it
> is an experiment where to "fail fast" is an acceptable outcome. The
> sub-team's goal is to stabilize the group policy API as quickly as
> possible,  making any needed changes based on early user and operator
> experience.
>
> The L and M cycles that Mark suggests below to "revisit the status" are a
> completely different time frame. By the L or M cycle, we should be working
> on a new V3 Neutron API that pulls these APIs together into a more cohesive
> core API. We will not be in a position to do this properly without the
> experience of using the proposed group policy extension with the V2 Neutron
> API in production.
>

> If we were failing miserably, or if serious technical issues were being
> identified with the patches, some delay might make sense. But, other than
> Mark's -2 blocking the initial patches from merging, we are on track to
> complete the planned work in Juno.
>
> -Bob
>


As a member of nova-core, I find this whole discussion very startling.
Putting aside the concerns over technical details and the pain of having in
tree experimental APIs (such as nova v3 API), neutron still isn't the
de-facto networking solution from nova's perspective and it won't be until
neutron has feature and performance parity with nova-network. In fact due
to the slow maturation of neutron, nova has moved nova-network from
'frozen' to open for development (with a few caveats).  So unless this new
API directly solves some of the gaps in [0], I see no reason to push this
into Juno. Juno hardly seems to be the appropriate time to introduce a new
not-so-stable API; Juno is the time to address all the gaps [0] and hit
feature and performance parity with nova-network.


[0]
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/TechnicalCommittee/Neutron_Gap_Coverage


best,
Joe



>
>
>
> Why this email?
> ---------------
> Our community has been discussing and working on Group Based Policy (GBP)
> for many months.  I think the discussion has reached a point where we need
> to openly discuss a few issues before moving forward.  I recognize that
> this discussion could create frustration for those who have invested
> significant time and energy, but the reality is we need ensure we are
> making decisions that benefit all members of our community (users,
> operators, developers and vendors).
>
> Experimentation
> ----------------
> I like that as a community we are exploring alternate APIs.  The process
> of exploring via real user experimentation can produce valuable results.  A
> good experiment should be designed to fail fast to enable further trials
> via rapid iteration.
>
> Merging large changes into the master branch is the exact opposite of
> failing fast.
>
> The master branch deliberately favors small iterative changes over time.
>  Releasing a new version of the proposed API every six months limits our
> ability to learn and make adjustments.
>
> In the past, we’ve released LBaaS, FWaaS, and VPNaaS as experimental APIs.
>  The results have been very mixed as operators either shy away from
> testing/offering the API or embrace the API with the expectation that the
> community will provide full API support and migration.  In both cases, the
> experiment fails because we either could not get the data we need or are
> unable to make significant changes without accepting a non-trivial amount
> of technical debt via migrations or draft API support.
>
> Next Steps
> ----------
> Previously, the GPB subteam used a Github account to host the development,
> but the workflows and tooling do not align with OpenStack's development
> model. I’d like to see us create a group based policy project in
> StackForge.  StackForge will host the code and enable us to follow the same
> open review and QA processes we use in the main project while we are
> developing and testing the API. The infrastructure there will benefit us as
> we will have a separate review velocity and can frequently publish
> libraries to PyPI.  From a technical perspective, the 13 new entities in
> GPB [1] do not require any changes to internal Neutron data structures.
>  The docs[2] also suggest that an external plugin or service would work to
> make it easier to speed development.
>
> End State
> ---------
> APIs require time to fully bake and right now it is too early to know the
> final outcome.  Using StackForge will allow the team to retain all of its
> options including: merging the code into Neutron, adopting the repository
> as sub-project of the Network Program, leaving the project in StackForge
> project or learning that users want something completely different.  I
> would expect that we'll revisit the status of the repo during the L or M
> cycles since the Kilo development cycle does not leave enough time to
> experiment and iterate.
>
>
> mark
>
> [1]
> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/neutron-specs/tree/specs/juno/group-based-policy-abstraction.rst#n370
> [2]
> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Nn1HjghAvk2RTPwvltSrnCUJkidWKWY2ckU7OYAVNpo/edit#slide=id.g12c5a79d7_4078
> [3]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing listOpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.orghttp://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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140806/b58a6ba0/attachment.html>