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)" <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: >On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Stephen Wong <s3w...@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) >> <kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Stein, Manuel (Manuel)" >>><manuel.st...@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:kmest...@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@lists.openstack.org >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev