Open Stack

I agree. Ryan, can you propose a patch based off of the existing group
policy work so we can get an idea of what changes are required to implement
this level of abstraction?

It sounds like this is work that can be built entirely on top of the
existing abstractions and APIs offered by the current GBP work. If that's
the case, it could be contained in the CLI or possibly introduced in
another extension if it requires too much complexity in the client.

Cheers,
--
Kevin Benton
On Jul 30, 2014 12:25 PM, "Mandeep Dhami" <dhami at noironetworks.com> wrote:

> Hi Ryan:
>
> As I stated in the patch review, the suggestion to use a "profiled API"
> like IETF/CCITT is indeed very interesting. As a "profiled API" has not
> been tried with any neutron model before, and as there is no existing
> design pattern/best practices for how best to structure that, my
> recommendation is to create a new patch (dependent on this patch) to try
> that experiment.
>
> That patch will also clarify what is meant you mean by a "profiled API"
> and how that might interact with other openstack services like Heat and
> Horizon.
>
> Regards,
> Mandeep
> -----
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Hemanth Ravi <hemanthraviml at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Adding this CLI command seems to be a good way to provide support for the
>> second model. This can be submitted as a new review patch to work through
>> the approaches to implement this. I suggest the current CLI patch [1] be
>> reviewed for the existing spec and completed.
>>
>> Ryan, would it possible for you to start a new review submit for the new
>> command(s). Could you also provide any references for "profiled" API in
>> IETF, CCITT.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -hemanth
>>
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104013
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ryan Moats <rmoats at us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As promised in Monday's Neutron IRC minutes [1], this mail is a "trip
>>> down memory lane" looking at the history of the
>>> Neutron GP project..  The original GP google doc [2] included specifying
>>> policy via both a produce/consume 1-group
>>> approach and as a link between two groups.  There was an email thread
>>> [3] that discussed the relationship between
>>> these models early on, but that discussion petered out and during a
>>> later IRC meeting [4] the concept of contracts
>>> were added, but without changing the basic use case requirements from
>>> the original document.  A followup meeting [5]
>>> began the discussion of how to express the original model from the
>>> contract data model but that discussion doesn't
>>> appear to have been completed either.  The PoC in Atlanta raised a set
>>> of issues [6],[7] around the complexity of the
>>> resulting PoC code.
>>>
>>> The good news is that having looked through the proposed GP code commits
>>> (links to which can be found at [8) I
>>> believe that folks that want to be able to specify policies via the
>>> 2-group approach (and yes, I'm one of them) can have
>>> that without changing the model encoded in those commits. Rather, it can
>>> be done via the WiP CLI code commit by
>>> providing a "profiled" API - this is a technique used by the IETF,
>>> CCITT, etc. to allow a rich API to be consumed in
>>> common ways.  In this case, what I'm envisioning is something like
>>>
>>> neutron policy-apply [policy rule] [src group] [destination group]
>>>
>>> in this case, the CLI would perform the contract creation for the policy
>>> rule, and assigning the proper produce/consume
>>> edits to the specified source and destination groups.  Note:  this is in
>>> addition to the CLI providing direct access to the
>>> underlying data model.  I believe that this is the simplest way to
>>> "bridge the gap" and provide support to folks who want
>>> to specify policy as something between two groups.
>>>
>>> Ryan Moats (regXboi)
>>>
>>> References:
>>> [1]
>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking/2014/networking.2014-07-28-21.02.log.txt
>>> [2]
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIrupCD9E/edit#
>>> [3]
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/022150.html
>>> [4]
>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-02-27-19.00.log.html
>>> [5]
>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-03-20-19.00.log.html
>>> [6]
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/035661.html
>>> [7]
>>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-05-22-18.01.log.html
>>> [8] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140730/2946eff3/attachment.html>