Open Stack

Agree. Vnffg can be moved as 'vnf forwardinggraph'. Also, we are discussing to improve the command readability from an user perspective. 


Thanks,
Trinath Somanchi.

Digital Networking | NXP – Hyderabad – INDIA.
Email: trinath.somanchi at nxp.com
Mobile: +91 9866235130 | Off: +91 4033504051


-----Original Message-----
From: Akihiro Motoki [mailto:amotoki at gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 12:32 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Tacker][OSC] Command naming specs

2017-04-15 12:44 GMT+09:00 Trinath Somanchi <trinath.somanchi at nxp.com>:
> Hi Jay-
>
> Thanks for the suggestions, we have improved this to an extent [1].
>
> For  'openstack vnf service function chain create' we agreed to go 
> with, 'openstack nfv chain create' or 'openstack vnf chain create'

I agree with Jay that NFV sounds too broad.
Even though tacker's scope can cover VNF-M and NFV-O, 'nfv' still sound too broad to me.
If a command belongs to VNF area, I would suggest to use 'vnf'.
If you have 'nfvo' related commands, you can explore an appropriate word.

VNFM and NFVO are different layers in ETSI and for example I am not sure 'VNF' forwarding graph can be called as 'NFV' forwarding graph.

> For ' openstack vnf forwardinggraph create' , you suggestion sounds 
> good. We are thinking on 'openstack vnffg create' in simple terms.

I don't think 'fg' is a common word. It is a bit long but 'forwarding graph' is much easier to understand.
'vnffg' is difficult to understand even though I think I know NFV to some extent.
Command line completion helps you. You should not think from the developer perspective.

Thanks,
Akihiro

> We have come up with a rule for certain commands which conflict with 
> other OpenStack projects,'nfv' is prefixed to differentiate the commands.
>
> The commands that may conflict include ``network-service``, 
> ``classifier``, ``nfp``, ``chain`` and ``event``.
>
> [1]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/455188/14/specs/pike/python-openstack
> client.rst
>
> Thanks,
>
> Trinath Somanchi.
>
>
>
> Digital Networking | NXP – Hyderabad – INDIA.
>
> Email: trinath.somanchi at nxp.com
>
> Mobile: +91 9866235130 | Off: +91 4033504051
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 12:55 AM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Tacker][OSC] Command naming specs
>
>
>
> On 04/12/2017 03:08 AM, Trinath Somanchi wrote:
>
>> Hi OSC team-
>
>>
>
>> While  implementing tacker-cli commands as OSC plugins [1], We are
>
>> struck in command naming specifications.
>
>>
>
>> Tacker being NFVO+VNFM - an NFV component, we have taken ‘nfv’ as the
>
>> prefix.
>
>
>
> It's not *all* of NFV, though.
>
>
>
> This problem, by the way, is an indication that Tacker might have too 
> big a scope...and a scope that is very much tailored/purpose-built for Telcos/NFV.
> But whatever, I raised this concern during the project application as 
> a member of the TC and folks ignored me, so it is what it is I guess.
>
>
>
>> We were struck in naming the below commands while aligning with the
>
>> OSC naming specs.
>
>>
>
>> For the below commands, for readability, we have added ‘-‘ within the
>
>> command names.
>
>>
>
>> Like,
>
>>
>
>>           network-service,  vnf-forwarding-graph,
>
>> service-function-chain,
>
>>
>
>>     network-flow-classifier, network-forwarding-path.
>
>
>
> I think what Dean and Akihiro were suggesting is to use "vnf" as the 
> first "word" in the command list and then use space-delimited commands like so:
>
>
>
> openstack vnf network service create
>
>
>
> Or just leave off the "network" above, because, well, Tacker doesn't 
> create any other type of service..., so:
>
>
>
> openstack vnf service create
>
>
>
> and then
>
>
>
> openstack vnf forwardinggraph create
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> openstack vnf service function chain create
>
>
>
>
>
> but then, you'll hit on the obvious overlap with networking-sfc, which 
> will bring in the obvious question of "what's the difference between 
> Tacker's SFC and networking-sfc's SFC?" which again should lead folks 
> to question the scope of Tacker in relation to other OpenStack projects...
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> -jay
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>
> Unsubscribe: 
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: 
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev