[openstack-dev] [keystone][nova][ironic][heat] Do we want a BM/VM room at the PTG?

Dmitry Tantsur dtantsur at redhat.com
Wed Jan 31 17:22:52 UTC 2018

On 01/31/2018 06:15 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> On 1/30/2018 9:33 AM, Colleen Murphy wrote:
>> At the last PTG we had some time on Monday and Tuesday for
>> cross-project discussions related to baremetal and VM management. We
>> don't currently have that on the schedule for this PTG. There is still
>> some free time available that we can ask for[1]. Should we try to
>> schedule some time for this?
>>  From a keystone perspective, some things we'd like to talk about with
>> the BM/VM teams are:
>> - Unified limits[2]: we now have a basic REST API for registering
>> limits in keystone. Next steps are building out libraries that can
>> consume this API and calculate quota usage and limit allocation, and
>> developing models for quotas in project hierarchies. Input from other
>> projects is essential here.
>> - RBAC: we've introduced "system scope"[3] to fix the admin-ness
>> problem, and we'd like to guide other projects through the migration.
>> - Application credentials[4]: this main part of this work is largely
>> done, next steps are implementing better access control for it, which
>> is largely just a keystone team problem but we could also use this
>> time for feedback on the implementation so far
>> There's likely some non-keystone-related things that might be at home
>> in a dedicated BM/VM room too. Do we want to have a dedicated day or
>> two for these projects? Or perhaps not dedicated days, but
>> planned-in-advance meeting time? Or should we wait and schedule it
>> ad-hoc if we feel like we need it?
>> Colleen
>> [1] 
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRmqAAQZA1rIzlNJpVp-X60-z6jMn_95BKWtf0csGT9LkDharY-mppI25KjiuRasmK413MxXcoSU7ki/pubhtml?gid=1374855307&single=true 
>> [2] 
>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/specs/keystone/queens/limits-api.html 
>> [3] 
>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/specs/keystone/queens/system-scope.html 
>> [4] 
>> http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/specs/keystone/queens/application-credentials.html 
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> These all seem like good topics for big cross-project issues.
> I've never liked the "BM/VM" platform naming thing, it seems to imply that the 
> only things one needs to care about for these discussions is if they work on or 
> use nova and ironic, and that's generally not the case.

++ can we please rename it? I think people (myself included) will expect 
specifically something related to bare metal instances co-existing with virtual 
ones (e.g. scheduling or networking concerns). Which is also a great topic, but 
it does not seem to be present on the list.

> So if you do have a session about this really cross-project platform-specific 
> stuff, can we at least not call it "BM/VM"? Plus, "BM" always makes me think of 
> something I'd rather not see in a room with other people.

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list