Hi, Sounds good, but I could join if it’s at the very start of the meeting, after 17:15 UTC I’m unavailable on Thursdays.
Let me know if that’d be possible. Thanks in advance, Miguel Ángel Ajo On Friday 5 June 2015 at 20:36, Cathy Zhang wrote: > Sure. I will add this item to the next IRC meeting agenda. > > Thanks, > Cathy > > From: Henry Fourie > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 11:27 AM > To: Miguel Angel Ajo; Vikram Choudhary > Cc: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]); Cathy > Zhang; [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]); Dongfeng (C); Kyle > Mestery; [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]); Dhruv Dhody; Kalyankumar Asangi > Subject: RE: [neutron] Regarding Flow classifiers existing proposals > > Miguel, > I agree, we can probably use the service-chaining meeting to discuss this. > We can have it as an agenda item for the next meeting: > http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/#Neutron_Service_Chaining_meeting > > - Louis > > > From: Miguel Angel Ajo [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:42 AM > To: Vikram Choudhary > Cc: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]); Henry > Fourie; Cathy Zhang; [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]); Dongfeng > (C); Kyle Mestery; [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]); Dhruv Dhody; Kalyankumar Asangi > Subject: [neutron] Regarding Flow classifiers existing proposals > > > > > > Added openstack-dev, where I believe this conversation must live. > > > > I totally agree on this, thank you for bringing up this conversation. This is > not something we want to do for QoS this cycle, but probably next cycle. > > > > Anyway, an unified data model and API to create/update classifiers will not > only be beneficial from the code duplication point of view, but will also > provide a better user experience. > > > > I’m all for it. > > > > Best regards, > > Miguel Ángel Ajo > > > > > On Friday 5 June 2015 at 09:57, Vikram Choudhary wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > > > > > > > There are multiple proposal floating around flow classifier rules for > > Liberty [1], [2] and [3]. > > > > > > I feel we all should work together and try to address all our use case > > having a unified framework rather than working separately achieving the > > same goal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Moreover, I can find the proposal for flow classifier as defined by the > > existing SFC [2] proposal is too generic and could address all the use > > cases by minor extension’s. > > > > > > > > > > > > In this regard, I would like all to come forward, exchange their thoughts, > > work together and make it happen good the first go rather doing the same > > effort separately and end up in duplicating code & effort L. > > > > > > I always feel less code will make our life happy in the long run ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know about your views. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] Add Neutron API extensions for packet forwarding > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/186663/ > > > > > > > > > > [2] Neutron API for Service Chaining [Flow Filter resource] > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/177946/6/specs/liberty/neutron-api-for-service-chaining.rst > > > > > > > > > > > > [3] QoS API Extension [Defines classifier rule in QoSRule. Classifier rule > > can really grow big in the long run]: > > > > > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/88599/10/specs/liberty/qos-api-extension.rst > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Vikram > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > (mailto:[email protected]?subject:unsubscribe) > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
