On Nov 18, 2014, at 6:36 PM, Armando M. <arma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mark, Kyle,
> 
> What is the strategy for tracking the progress and all the details about this 
> initiative? Blueprint spec, wiki page, or something else?
> 
> One thing I personally found useful about the spec approach adopted in [1], 
> was that we could quickly and effectively incorporate community feedback; 
> having said that I am not sure that the same approach makes sense here, hence 
> the question.
> 
> Also, what happens for experimental efforts that are neither L2-3 nor L4-7 
> (e.g. TaaS or NFV related ones?), but they may still benefit from this 
> decomposition (as it promotes better separation of responsibilities)? Where 
> would they live? I am not sure we made any particular progress of the 
> incubator project idea that was floated a while back.

Would it make sense to define the advanced services repo as being for services 
that are beyond basic connectivity and routing? For example, VPN can be L2 and 
L3. Seems like restricting to L4-L7 may cause some confusion as to what’s in 
and what’s out.


Regards,

PCM (Paul Michali)

MAIL …..…. p...@cisco.com
IRC ……..… pc_m (irc.freenode.com)
TW ………... @pmichali
GPG Key … 4525ECC253E31A83
Fingerprint .. 307A 96BB 1A4C D2C7 931D 8D2D 4525 ECC2 53E3 1A83


> 
> Cheers,
> Armando
> 
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/134680/
> 
> On 18 November 2014 15:32, Doug Wiegley <do...@a10networks.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > so the specs repository would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle.
> 
> One of the reasons to split is that these two teams have different priorities 
> and velocities.  Wouldn’t that be easier to track/manage as separate 
> launchpad projects and specs repos, irrespective of who is approving them?
> 
> Thanks,
> doug
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 18, 2014, at 10:31 PM, Mark McClain <m...@mcclain.xyz> wrote:
>> 
>> All-
>> 
>> Over the last several months, the members of the Networking Program have 
>> been discussing ways to improve the management of our program.  When the 
>> Quantum project was initially launched, we envisioned a combined service 
>> that included all things network related.  This vision served us well in the 
>> early days as the team mostly focused on building out layers 2 and 3; 
>> however, we’ve run into growth challenges as the project started building 
>> out layers 4 through 7.  Initially, we thought that development would float 
>> across all layers of the networking stack, but the reality is that the 
>> development concentrates around either layer 2 and 3 or layers 4 through 7.  
>> In the last few cycles, we’ve also discovered that these concentrations have 
>> different velocities and a single core team forces one to match the other to 
>> the detriment of the one forced to slow down.
>> 
>> Going forward we want to divide the Neutron repository into two separate 
>> repositories lead by a common Networking PTL.  The current mission of the 
>> program will remain unchanged [1].  The split would be as follows:
>> 
>> Neutron (Layer 2 and 3)
>> - Provides REST service and technology agnostic abstractions for layer 2 and 
>> layer 3 services.
>> 
>> Neutron Advanced Services Library (Layers 4 through 7)
>> - A python library which is co-released with Neutron
>> - The advance service library provides controllers that can be configured to 
>> manage the abstractions for layer 4 through 7 services.
>> 
>> Mechanics of the split:
>> - Both repositories are members of the same program, so the specs repository 
>> would continue to be shared during the Kilo cycle.  The PTL and the drivers 
>> team will retain approval responsibilities they now share. 
>> - The split would occur around Kilo-1 (subject to coordination of the Infra 
>> and Networking teams). The timing is designed to enable the proposed REST 
>> changes to land around the time of the December development sprint.
>> - The core team for each repository will be determined and proposed by Kyle 
>> Mestery for approval by the current core team.
>> - The Neutron Server and the Neutron Adv Services Library would be co-gated 
>> to ensure that incompatibilities are not introduced.
>> - The Advance Service Library would be an optional dependency of Neutron, so 
>> integrated cross-project checks would not be required to enable it during 
>> testing.
>> - The split should not adversely impact operators and the Networking program 
>> should maintain standard OpenStack compatibility and deprecation cycles.
>> 
>> This proposal to divide into two repositories achieved a strong consensus at 
>> the recent Paris Design Summit and it does not conflict with the current 
>> governance model or any proposals circulating as part of the ‘Big Tent’ 
>> discussion.
>> 
>> Kyle and mark
>> 
>> [1] 
>> https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/plain/reference/programs.yaml
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to