Upcoming TC 2.0 Release Branch

Hey All- Its about time to cut our first branch in the 2.0 series and starting testing release candidates. TC1.8 is not quite yet through the incubator voting process, but it appears that approval is hopefully quite close. No changes have gone into 1.8 in the past few months, so on top of the

New Committer - Rob Butts

The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Traffic Control (incubating) has invited Rob Butts to become a committer and we are pleased to announce that he has accepted. Rob began his Traffic Control contributions in November of 2015. Rob's contributions are wide ranging from Dockerization

[ANNOUNCE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0 (Incubating)

The Apache Traffic Control team would like to announce the release of Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0 (incubating). More details regarding Apache Traffic Control can be found at: http://trafficcontrol.incubator.apache.org/ The release artifacts can be downloaded here:

Compiling TC 2.0.0 Release Notes

Hey All- I'm putting together the release notes for the 2.0 release. There's about 1,041 commits since 1.8, which are way too many for me to filter through myself. If you committed a feature you would like mentioned in the release notes (or you think our users need to know about), please

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control (incubating) 2.0.0-RC1

This release candidate has not received required +1s, so vote has failed. We will correct outstanding issues and prepare a new RC. On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Eric Friedrich <fri...@apache.org> wrote: > Hello All, > > I've prepared a release for v2.0.0-RC1 > > The vote

Re: Streamlining TC management and operations sequences

e what is preferable from an operator point of view. I'm also > not familiar with TC 3.0 configuration solution to validate he different > approaches against. > > Please share your thoughts, > Thanks, > Nir > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Eric Friedrich (efrie

Re: [jira] [Commented] (TC-120) The zero size file can't be updated by Traffic Ops ORT

Hey Jifeng- I added you to the contributors list. —Eric > On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:05 AM, Jifeng Yang (JIRA) wrote: > > >[ > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TC-120?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=15853650#comment-15853650 > ]

FW: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC8)

From: Justin Mclean [jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 6:20 PM To: gene...@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC8) Hi, Sorry but it’s -1 (binding) as licensing issues and file

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 1.8.0-incubating (RC10)

I think we should keep votes open a minimum of 72 hours, regardless of how many +1s come in. —Eric > On Feb 16, 2017, at 5:34 PM, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > > Good thing I waited..Something went wrong with my git clone and a > bunch of changes went in from master... > >

Re: [VOTE] incubator-trafficcontrol-1.8.0-RC8

+1 on RC8 Here’s what I checked: - hashes and signatures good - incubating in name - tarball builds successfully - git tag good —Eric > On Jan 19, 2017, at 2:58 PM, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > > Thanks, Hank..I don't think the double-license or double-use > will have any

Re: docker-compose for builds

I’ll echo my comment from Slack: This looks like a pretty low risk change, so would not be opposed to back porting to 2.0 —Eric > On Mar 1, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > > Hi all..I've submitted a PR >

Re: [VOTE] Traffic Control RELEASE-1.8.0-RC1

Hey Dan- I haven’t looked at the RPMs yet, but I think we also need to put up a package for astats. A few other things: - Package name should have “incubating” in it - Need signatures directly on the release packages (i.e. 1 detached sig per RPM/SRPM), see these:

Re: license details

The Apache release guide is pretty reluctant about putting things into NOTICE because it places dependencies on downstream components. We for sure need a NOTICE entry for max mind, but I think most other packages are AL or MIT which don't require attribution. Rather, I think we need to

Source Code for Binary Trafficserver RPMs

Traffic Control has traditionally released binary RPMs for all components including Traffic Server. For all of these components, the source has been available in Github. With Traffic Control 1.7, what is the best way for me to obtain the source used to re-create or audit the release

Re: [VOTE] Traffic Control RELEASE-1.8.0-RC3

Any chance we could start running RAT as part of our CICD builds? I could probably set something up in our private Jenkins if theres not a better option. —Eric > On Dec 8, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > > FYI -- we decided to -1 this based on more license

Re: Question regarding TC integration

Hey Nir, Adan- I don’t think #2 configuration pull is actually required. The cache must be configured in Traffic Ops, so Traffic Monitor can learn its hostname and capacity. Other than that it should just be meeting the astats criteria. I think you might need interface speed and actual used

Re: Enhancement: Multi Delivery Services With Same Domain Name and Different Path Prefixes

To use regex_remap, I think we would want just a single line in remap.config that covers all delivery services with the same host regex. This would be a change from today where every DS gets one remap line. Instead, we would need to combine multiple DS into one remap line with multiple lines in

Re: TC 2.0.x branch

Will 2.0 still support MySQL or just Postgres? Will the 2.0 release include auto-migration from MySQL to Postgres? Any other changes coming in that branch other than the move to a different DB? —Eric > On Jan 5, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Jeremy Mitchell wrote: > > As

Re: TC 2.0.x branch

all releases > after 2.0 will be Postgres. > > There will be a migration included that migrates your existing database. > > Rgds, > JvD > >> On Jan 6, 2017, at 4:44 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> Will 2.0 s

Re: Backup Cache Group Selection

rage zone, I would > think? > > Rgds, > JvD > >> On Dec 22, 2016, at 12:28, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> The current behavior of cache group selection works as follows >> 1) Look for a subnet match in CZ

Re: Backup Cache Group Selection

Where would TR look outside the assigned cache group to find the next closest cache group? > On Jan 4, 2017, at 11:25 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com> > wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2017, at 5:20 PM, Jeff Elsloo > <jeff.els...@gmail.com<mailto

Re: [VOTE] Traffic Control RELEASE-1.8.0-RC5

Sorry for the second email, but I just wanted to clarify that +1 did not include a judgment on the Riak bug. I wasn’t trying to say we should release with it, will leave that decision to others. —Eric > On Dec 22, 2016, at 9:08 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com>

Re: [VOTE] Traffic Control RELEASE-1.8.0-RC5

+1 on RC5 too > On Dec 21, 2016, at 2:32 PM, Jan van Doorn wrote: > > I'm sticking with my +1 as well. > > Rgds, > JvD > >> On Dec 21, 2016, at 11:44, David Neuman wrote: >> >> I spot checked a few files that were missing license headers in RC4

Backup Cache Group Selection

The current behavior of cache group selection works as follows 1) Look for a subnet match in CZF 2) Use MaxMind/Neustar for GeoLocation based on client IP. Choose closest cache group. 3) Use Delivery Service Geo-Miss Lat/Long. Choose closest cache group. For deployments where IP addressing is

Re: Backup Cache Group Selection

; John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 27/01/2017, 10:51 PM, "Jeff Elsloo" <jeff.els...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Steve: I don't think the patch is required, however, as Eric found, >>>>>wi

Re: adding new edge server

rak On Monday, March 20, 2017 8:31 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com<mailto:efrie...@cisco.com>> wrote: Did you add the IP of the Traffic Monitor to the ip_allow config parameter in Traffic Ops? —Eric > On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Burak Sarp > <sarp_bu

Re: adding new edge server

Did you add the IP of the Traffic Monitor to the ip_allow config parameter in Traffic Ops? —Eric > On Mar 20, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Burak Sarp wrote: > > Hi all, > I added new Edge server, I can reach contents from edge servee, so traffic > server is running and

Re: Public CI Builds for Traffic Control

ld slave), assuming that doesn't break Apache's rules. The CI doesn't need a ton of gas, but the more oomph it has, the more granularly it can build and more aggressively we can test. On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:54 PM Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: Hey All- I’d played around

Re: Update Delivery Service URL

You will also need to queue updates for the caches assigned to this delivery service and run the ORT script in “syncds” mode to update the configuration on the caches. This is how remap.config is changed. CRConfig only goes out to Traffic Monitor and Traffic Router. This is pretty safe to do

Re: Github "Backport" Label

yan <ryan_dur...@comcast.com> wrote: > > Starting a wiki page on pull requests guidance to document information like > this. > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TC/Github+Pull+Request+Guidance > > Ryan Durfey M | 303-524-5099 > > > From: "Er

Re: Public CI Builds for Traffic Control

e most flexibility if we could get one or more companies to donate a publicly accessible host (or even theoretically, a build slave), assuming that doesn't break Apache's rules. The CI doesn't need a ton of gas, but the more oomph it has, the more granularly it can build and more aggressively we can test. On

Re: Recent changes to ATS config file generation

Thanks Derek- - ORT will not update regex_revalidate unless the parents have been cleared. EF> Is this based on the parent’s upd_pending or the parent’s reval_pending? - ORT will ignore the upd_pending state of the parents during syncds. EF> Isn’t it important that parent’s upd_pending be

Re: API GW, new AAA model and legacy AAA model in Traffic Ops

Hey Amir- Makes sense. 1) Will API Gateway be a service external to TO (like a trafficserver/nginx proxy responsible just for authorization)? 2) The API GW will be performing the authorization, so will it need access to the TO DB to read the policy stored there? This seems like it may be

Re: API GW, new AAA model and legacy AAA model in Traffic Ops

Thanks Amir- > On Apr 3, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Amir Yeshurun <am...@qwilt.com> wrote: > > Hi Eric, please see response inline > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 3:20 PM Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com> > wrote: > >> Hey Amir- >> Makes sense. >

Re: Proposal for CDN definition file based configuration management

n <ryan_dur...@comcast.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Started a new wiki page to discuss this here https://cwiki.apache.org/ >>>> confluence/display/TC/Configuration+Management >>>> >>>> I will do my best to summarize the discussion bel

Re: Proposal for CDN definition file based configuration management

) and we have *1K *revisions per DS. > In such a case versioning will use 10GB, which I believe is not an issue > for postgres to hold (yet, I'm not a postgres expert). > > Nir > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < > efrie...@cisco.com>

Github "Backport" Label

I created a new label in Github called “backport”. Please tag any PRs with this label to make them easier to find. —Eric

Re: 2.1 RM

Hey Hank- Many Thanks. Your RM baseball cap will be in the mail! I need to clean up the Release Management wiki page a bit for you. I’ll try to do that in the next few days. When’s the release branch get pulled? ;-) —Eric > On Jul 17, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Dan Kirkwood

Re: Promote Golang Traffic Monitor to Default

I think I remember Rob making this point in Miami, but all of TMs APIs (REST, CRConfig, Health.json, etc…) are identical between the Java and Golang version, right? What about compatibility with earlier versions of TC? For example: - Can a TC1.7 traffic ops configure a Golang TM? - Does the

Re: 2.1 RM

Any takers for 2.1 release manager? Dan and I will both make ourselves available to help out and the process is pretty well known at this point. —Eric > On Jul 6, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Dan Kirkwood wrote: > > fwiw, 1.8.0 was lengthy because of the transition to Apache

Re: Traffic Ops Golang Migration Proposal

ll that, and then change the config of the Golang TO to serve on the real port (443). As proposed, once all endpoints are rewritten, we simply remove the old TO from the RPM and Service, and users just upgrade, and it keeps working, with no changes to config, Puppet, RPM, or anything else. I'd ful

Re: Goose installer script

Hey Dew- What calls this script? If its called from the Traffic Ops Spec file, then this will cause some pain for those of us that need to install without internet access. —Eric > On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:41 PM, Dewayne Richardson wrote: > > I'm working toward a more

Re: Adding support for per-DeliveryService routing names

ice rather than a fully-customized domain. > That way > they can change their DS more freely without the HOST_REGEXP requiring > constant updating. > > --Rawlin > > On 8/4/17, 10:50 AM, "Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: > >As I

Re: Adding support for per-DeliveryService routing names

o makes it so we don't have to have a CDN wide setting. (and Rawlin, I think you mean to say DS_PROFILE rather than TR_PROFILE type to add the param to if we chose to do that?? Or was it the default that goes into TR_PROFILE and the override into DS_PROFILE?). In any case - if we make the columns NO

Re: Preventing routing to individual caches

How does your use case differ from marking a server as offline in Traffic Ops and snapshotting? Thats the easiest way I can think of to get a server in this state —Eric > On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Gelinas, Derek wrote: > > We’ve run across a situation in which

Re: Preventing routing to individual caches

und we’re using at the moment - setting them to > admin_down. That’s a temporary measure, though - we want something more > permanent. > > DG >> On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> How does your use case d

RE: Preventing routing to individual caches

22, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Gelinas, Derek <derek_geli...@comcast.com<mailto:derek_geli...@comcast.com>> wrote: I'd agree with you if this was designed to drain, but this is intended as a permanent state for a pretty good long list of caches. DG On Aug 22, 2017, at 1:28 PM, Eric Friedri

Re: Moving Traffic Control the "full" github

I am all for one less tool to use. Also I think it will lower bar to bringing more people into our project if they don’t have to sign up for the ASF JIRA separately. —Eric > On May 17, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Mark Torluemke wrote: > > Also +1. Part of the move from

Re: [VOTE] Adding a CHANGELOG.md file

What about a compromise where developer chooses whether or not a feature/important fix is worth mentioning in the release notes. This would be at feature granularity not individual commit. Then at release build time, a script gathers from JIRA/Github API all fixes that were committed in that

Re: 2.0 release?

another look at 2.0 and see if it is a viable release > that we should move forward with, is that everyone else's understanding as > well? > Does anyone know of any showstopper issues that still exist? > > Thanks, > Dave > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Eric Friedrich (ef

Re: [VOTE] Adding a CHANGELOG.md file

e categories are mutually >>>>> exclusive in Jira and labels in github are not. You could also have a >>>>> developer run the script regularly, or have CI do it. >>>>> >>>>> To Eric's comment, if you can make that indication in

Traffic Control SLA

Hi All- We had some discussion around what level of support we want to offer to users of our software. I'd like to suggest a policy that for all releases we will fix all security issues and we will fix regressions at discretion of the release manager. There was also discussion about

Re: API GW route configuration

also migates this angle.) > > He > > > >> knows > > > >> > > that as soon as he starts his nefarious deed, alarms are going > to > > go > > > >> off, > > > >> > > so he also uses this local b

Re: Backup Cache Group Selection

oo <jeff.els...@gmail.com> wrote: Yes, that's correct. -- Thanks, Jeff On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: Thanks Jeff- Could I think of it as the following? Echoing back to be sure I understand... If there is a lat/long for a cache g

Re: API GW route configuration

e missed it, but how is the route from the Gateway to TO > secured? > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:41 AM David Neuman <david.neuma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> +1 on keeping in on the mailing list >> >> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Eric Friedrich (efrie

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC4)

gt;> Can't use an undefined value as an ARRAY reference at >>>> /opt/traffic_ops/install/bin/_postinstall line 211, line 13. >>>> >>>> And I've already started looking into it... >>>> >>>> It is trying to load the secre

Re: Traffic Ops Default Profile Management

Can we include an ORIGIN profile? Does TRAFFIC_PORTAL need a profile too? (I’ve never set it up) —Eric > On Jun 12, 2017, at 1:14 PM, Dewayne Richardson wrote: > > Based upon the discussion around how we manage the default profiles Traffic > Ops profiles for 2.0 and 2.1, I

Re: Custom Delivery Service Domain Support

Thanks Zhilin- Could I use a domain of just “topdomain-cdn.com” or does it require a minimum of three levels? Is configuration just in delivery service or does the domain_name parameter need to be modified too? > On Jun 21, 2017, at 4:56 AM, Zhilin Huang (zhilhuan) >

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC6)

eb of >> trust, but according to >> http://www.apache.org/dev/release-distribution.html#sigs-and-sums : >> >> "Signing keys SHOULD be linked into a strong web of trust." >> >> We should get Eric's key signed at the earliest opportunity, but it'

Re: Support custom routing selection logics

Thanks John- A few more questions: - Are there any extensions to the Track class needed here? - Can we indicate in the access log how the plugins caused the request to be routed? If a plugin wanted to add additional detail to a Track object is that possible? - Can a plugin

Re: [VOTE] Move Traffic Control to full GitHub

I don’t think we can begin moving stuff over until we have write access to the Github repo. It looks like the Issues and Wiki tabs are disabled currently —Eric On May 19, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Durfey, Ryan > wrote: Unless there are any

Re: Duplicate TO API routes

Thumbs up on removal > On May 19, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Jeremy Mitchell wrote: > > @Eric_Friedrich - any concerns from you regarding removal of these > duplicate routes? Here they are to summarize: > > remove GET /api/$version/deliveryservices/list in favor of GET >

Re: Getting CZF data from BGP?

Hey Jan- Are you looking to build a static CZF based off of BGP inputs? Are you looking for something that will listen to BGP and create a “real-time CZF” that responds to routing/CG changes? Or something else? > On May 30, 2017, at 1:00 PM, Jan van Doorn wrote: > > Hi,

Re: LDAP Access

Is there an option to entirely block someone from even basic TO access despite authenticating with LDAP? > On May 31, 2017, at 11:24 AM, Robert Butts wrote: > > We have a PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-trafficcontrol/pull/627 to > change Traffic Ops to only

Update on RFC7871 - Client Subnet in DNS Support

We are planning to add support for RFC7871 to Traffic Router. Here is a brief description of the feature. Comments appreciated! Background Clients do not make DNS requests directly to TR. Typically TR requests come from DNS resolvers within the infrastructure. Today, Cache Group selection for

[CANCEL][VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC2)

; The source tar ball does not extract a proper directory structure. > > Thanks, > Dave > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Jeff Elsloo <jeff.els...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm +1 on this. Thanks for creating the RC Eric! >> -- >> Thanks, >> Jef

[VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC3)

rol/2.0.0/RC2> The vote will remain open until Thursday, June 8, 2017. This RC fixes some packaging issues in RC2, there are no other changes. The git tag hash is the same, but due to changes in the tarball the release signatures HAVE changes. Thanks, Eric Friedrich

[VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC2)

. Thanks! Eric Friedrich

[CANCEL] [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC3)

Jun 5, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Jeff Elsloo <els...@apache.org> wrote: >> +1 on this, signature and hashes validate. >> -- >> Thanks, >> Jeff >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 7:03 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) >> <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>

RE: Update on RFC7871 - Client Subnet in DNS Support

local caching DNS. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) < efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: > Thanks Ryan- >We will certainly have the option to disable use of this if you don’t > want to use it. > > This is useful feedback though and I’ll be sure to push on

[VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC5)

/docs/2.0.x/ The vote will remain open until Thursday, June 20, 2017. This RC fixes some comments from the IPMC made about 1.8.1 and also some minor bugs in the post install. Thanks, Eric Friedrich

[VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control 2.0.0-incubating (RC6)

st/dev/incubator/trafficcontrol/2.0.0/RC6 Docs are available here: https://trafficcontrol.apache.org/docs/2.0.x/ The vote will remain open until Friday, June 21, 2017. Thanks, Eric Friedrich

Re: API GW route configuration

From a higher level- what is purpose of the API Gateway? It seems like there may have been some previous discussions about API Gateway. Are there any notes or description that I can catch up on? How will it be deployed? (Is it a standalone service or something that runs inside the

Re: Goose installer script

ll the Perl version then >>> become obsolete? >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dave Neuman <neu...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Maybe it's time we take a look at what goose really buys us and >> consider >>>> writing our own

Re: Proposed changes to xml_id on a delivery service (from the API perspective)

I’m also OK with making xml_id immutable. I’d like us to look at having less restrictions in naming of DS Regexs rather than more. We have many use cases where the existing DS Regex is not sufficient and I think fixing it to xmlID would only worsen the problem. A specific case: xml_id is

Re: Goose installer script

;> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Mark Torluemke <mtorlue...@apache.org> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Gelinas, Derek < >>> derek_geli...@comcast.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> &

Re: Delivery-Service Configuration Versioning

Thanks Nir- Comments inline > On May 1, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Nir Sopher wrote: > > Dear all, > > Planning the efforts toward "self-service", we are considering > "delivery-service configuration versioning" (DSCV) as one of our next > steps. > In a very high level, by DSCV we refer

Re: Access Control - Limiting Roles / Capabilities Tenant Admins can Assign to Users

Could we further differentiate the user creation capabilities to: - Create CDN Admin user - Create CDN Ops user - Create CDN Viewer user - Create Tenant Admin user - Create Tenant Ops user - Create Tenant Viewer user Then only the CDN-Admin role would have the capability to create a cdn admin

Re: Removing installation dependencies

a changes… > > I’ll be more careful pulling in something new like that next time, sorry… > > Cheers, > JvD > > >> On Sep 14, 2017, at 10:06 AM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) <efrie...@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >> As we’re moving to TC2.1, we’ve found

Re: Traffic Controller on RedHat Servers

We’ve successfully run Traffic Control on Red Hat Servers. Some of the RPM versions are slightly different but there are no major changes required —Eric > On Sep 13, 2017, at 1:24 PM, Burak Sarp wrote: > > Hi all, > I know that traffic controller requires

Removing installation dependencies

As we’re moving to TC2.1, we’ve found that the goose migration requires not just the goose binary to be installed, but also the go compiler and a fairly large set of dependencies. Most of these are a result of the migration of the MSO parent_retry parameters from the DS table into the

Traffic Ops API Semantic Versioning

Does Traffic Ops expose a semantic version number as part of its API? http://semver.org/ "Given a version number MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH, increment the: 1. MAJOR version when you make incompatible API changes, 2. MINOR version when you add functionality in a backwards-compatible manner, and

Re: Configuration Management - Rules Engine

guration effect on the cache, but are used for various things. > > -MM > > On 9/5/17, 7:01:29 AM, "Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: > >Actual Wiki link is here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TC/Configuration+Management

Re: Apache Cwiki vs. Github Wiki vs. Github Docs

I’m pretty solidly against getting rid of the Wiki altogether for the reasons Jan laid out. I’d also like to know more about the Github Wiki workflow before we make a decision. For example, can someone actually open a PR against a Wiki page? —Eric > On Sep 26, 2017, at 8:46 PM, Durfey, Ryan

Re: Preventing routing to individual caches

") that already exists? It doesn't appear to be checked when > generating CRConfig right now, but maybe it should be? > >> > >> --Rawlin > >> > >> On 2017-08-22 11:45, "Gelinas, Derek" <derek_geli...@comcast.com> > wrote: >

[VOTE] Bugtracking in Github Issues

We currently use JIRA Issues to track all of the Traffic Control bugs. Now that we have write access to Github, we can move back to GH Issues for bug tracking. This will be a better workflow because its one fewer tool and account to have to interact with. This will hopefully lower the bar

Re: [VOTE] Bugtracking in Github Issues

Thanks Leif- I’ll check with the Incubator gurus. We already pulled the trigger, so at this point its more about asking for forgiveness. —Eric On Aug 29, 2017, at 6:47 PM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org<mailto:zw...@apache.org>> wrote: On Aug 28, 2017, at 10:38 AM, Eric Friedri

Re: Github Issue Organization and Admin Document Updates

The JIRA site is currently marked as read-only. I would expect that any changes there will fail. —Eric > On Aug 31, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Durfey, Ryan wrote: > > With the transition of issues to Github, we will be making efforts to > organize the github issues and

Re: Configuration Management - Rules Engine

Actual Wiki link is here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TC/Configuration+Management#ConfigurationManagement-Rules_Engine What is the difference between a parameter and a service rule? From the examples, it looks like parameters are all the legacy behaviors we have today and

Re: Traffic Ops API Semantic Versioning

t; >> What's the consensus here? Does everyone agree with Semantic Versioning? Do >> we want to commit to requiring it? Is there a consensus? Or should we take >> a vote, whether to require Semantic Versioning, Absolute Versioning, or No >> Version? >> >>

Re: Changing max_dns_answers default

> > On 12/4/17, 1:22 PM, "Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: > >It looks like this will modify existing values as well (so its not really > a default)? > >> On Dec 4, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Durfey, Ryan <ryan_dur...@comcast.com> wro

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control (incubating) 2.1.0-RC2

ng), Router and Stats. > Also got a redirect. > Note that I missed the last commit ("Change cdn.name to cdn.domain_name in > DeliveryServiceInfoForDomainList"), but as far as I see it could not break > the installation. > Nir > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 8:10 PM, Eri

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control (incubating) 2.1.0-RC2

I’ve been going through licensing for the 2.1 release and found this file: ./traffic_stats/vendor/golang.org/x/net/PATENTS This looks like it places some of the same restrictions that caused the whole Facebook React.js and rocksDb controversy a few months ago.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control (incubating) 2.1.0-RC2

hew_mi...@comcast.com>> wrote: FYI, Go itself has the same file https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/PATENTS On 11/14/17, 10:36:43 AM, "Eric Friedrich (efriedri)" <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: I’ve been going through licensing for the 2.1 release and found this file

TLS Client Authentication in Traffic Control

Someone else may find this useful, so I thought I would share. (Apologies for the earlier cross-post) Configuring TLS Client Authentication in Traffic Control (Experimental Testing Procedure) = Note: Trafficserver does not currently allow per-Delivery Service (per-remap) configuration

Anonymous IP Blocking Flowchart

Here is flowchart requested at the summit. I’ll put this diagram along with the rest of the slides up soon Its a link to a PNG despite the horribly formatted URL https://cisco.box.com/s/4rwd6kk069vdmzxpp2ak0vt2elds0ufc —Eric

Re: Anonymous IP Blocking Flowchart

; > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Eric Friedrich (efriedri) > <efrie...@cisco.com> wrote: >> Just realized the first diagram I put up was outdated >> >> The response to anonymous IP blocking is actually configurable between a >> slate (302 redirect to a new UR

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Traffic Control (incubating) 2.1.0-RC1

Do PRs/issues that don’t have a milestone assigned still end up in this changelog? I know theres a bunch more that went into 2.1 that isn’t in this list. Should we make sure that every PR/Issue is assigned a milestone before its merged? > On Oct 26, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Hank Beatty

Re: [VOTE] CHANGELOG.md file (second try)

[X] +1 to adding a changelog.MD file [] -1 to adding a changelog.MD file [] +1 to adding a changelog label in github [X] -1 to adding a changelog label in github I don’t think an auto-generated changelog will provide enough value to our users. Asking for updates to changelog.md in each PR will

Re: Starting the 2.2 Branch for Next Release of TC

Hey Rob- Thanks for taking on the RM duties! We’ve got 22 major open bugs in Github Issues currently:

  1   2   >