Re: [openstack-dev] [policy] [congress] Protocol for Congress -- Enactor
anyone read this? comments? On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Gregory Lebovitz gregory.i...@gmail.com wrote: Summary from IRC chat 10/14/2014 on weekly meeting [1] [2] Topic: Declarative Language for Congress — Enactor/Enforcer Question: Shall we specify a declarative language for communicating policy configured in Congress to enactors / enforcement systems Hypothesis (derived at conclusion of discussion): - Specify declarative protocol and framework for describing policy with extensible attributes/value fields described in a base ontology, with additional affinity ontologies, is what is needed earlier than later, to be able to achieve it as an end-state, before too many Enactors dive into one-offs. - We could achieve that specification once we know the right structure Discussion: - Given the following framework: - Elements: - Congress - The policy description point, a place where: - (a) policy inputs are collected - (b) collected policy inputs are integrated - (c) policy is defined - (d) declares policy intent to enforcing / enacting systems - (e) observes state of environment, noting policy violations - Feeders - provides policy inputs to Congress - Enactors / Enforcers - receives policy declarations from Congress and enacts / enforces the policy according to its capabilities - E.g. Nova for VM placement, Neutron for interface connectivity, FWaaS for access control, etc. What will the protocol be for the Congress — Enactors / Enforcers? thinrichs: we’ve we've been assuming that Congress will leverage whatever the Enactors (policy engines) and Feeders (and more generally datacenter services) that exist are using. For basic datacenter services, we had planned on teaching Congress what their API is and what it does. So there's no new protocol there—we'd just use HTTP or whatever the service expects. For Enactors, there are 2 pieces: (1) what policy does Congress push and (2) what protocol does it use to do that? We don't know the answer to (1) yet. (2) is less important, I think. For (2) we could use opflex, for example, or create a new one. (1) is hard because the Enactors likely have different languages that they understand. I’m not aware of anyone thinking about (2). I’m not thinking about (2) b/c I don't know the answer to (1). The *really* hard thing to understand IMO is how these Enactors should cooperate (in terms of the information they exchange and the functionality they provide). The bits they use to wrap the messages they send while cooperating is a lower-level question. jasonsb glebo: feel the need to clarify (2) glebo: if we come out strongly with a framework spec that identifies a protocol for (2), and make it clear that Congress participants, including several data center Feeders and Enactors, are in consensus, then the other Feeders Enactors will line up, in order to be useful in the modern deployments. Either that, or they will remain isolated from the new environment, or their customers will have to create custom connectors to the new environment. It seems that we have 2 options. (a) Congress learns any language spoken by Feeders and Enactors, or (b) specifies a single protocol for Congress — Enactors policy declarations, including a highly adaptable public registry(ies) for defining the meaning of content blobs in those messages. For (a) Congress would get VERY bloated with an abstraction layer, modules, semantics and state for each different language it needed to speak. And there would be 10s of these languages. For (b), there would be one way to structure messages that were constructed of blobs in (e.g.) some sort of Type/Length/Value (TLV) method, where the Types and Values were specified in some Internet registry. jasonsb: Could we attack this from the opposite direction? E.g. if Congress wanted to provide an operational dashboard to show if things are in compliance, it would be better served by receiving the state and stats from the Enactors in a single protocol. Could a dashboard like this be a carrot to lure the various players into a single protocol for Congress — Enactor? glebo jasonsb: If Congress has to give Enactors precise instructions on what to do, then Congress will bloat, having to have intelligence about each Enactor type, and hold its state and such. If Congress can deliver generalized policy declarations, and the Enactor is responsible for interpreting it, and applying it, and gathering and analyzing the state so that it knows how to react, then the intelligence and state that it is specialized in knowing will live in the Enactor. A smaller Congress is better, and this provides cleaner “layering” of the problem space overall. thinrichs: would love to see a single (2) language, but doesn’t see that as a practical solution in the short term
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Neutron mid-cycle announcement
I'd be happy to donate a Go To Meeting for the session, if desired. Not sure if / how it is better than Google Hangout. I know we can get GTM's for 100's of participants. Not sure how many Google Hangout can support, with something like slide sharing occuring. Anyway, let me know if you'd like me to set one up. On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 6:14 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Gary Kotton gkot...@vmware.com wrote: Hi, For those unable to attend will there be an option of remote access? Thanks Gary We'll do our best to make this happen. I'll see if we can get a Google Hangout going in the room, and make sure people are on IRC. Thanks! Kyle On 11/11/14, 3:04 PM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: Hi folks: Apologies for the delay in announcing the Neutron mid-cycle, but I was confirming the details up until last night. I've captured the details on an etherpad here [1]. The dates are December 8-10 (Monday-Wednesday), and it will be at the Adobe offices in Lehi, Utah, USA. We're still collecting information on hotels which should be on the etherpad later today. Thanks, looking forward to seeing everyone I missed in Paris! Kyle [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-kilo-midcycle ___ 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 -- Open industry-related email from Gregory M. Lebovitz ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based-policy] GBP Juno/Kilo next steps meeting
+1, summary? On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:31 AM, Igor Cardoso igordc...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Sumit. Unfortunately I could not go to the round table meeting, sorry for the absence. Did you talk about traffic steering? Is there some place or etherpad with a summary of what was discussed/outlined? Cheers, On 5 November 2014 17:22, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, We had a productive design session discussion on Tuesday. However, we could not get to the point where we discussed all the next steps and specific action items for Juno/Kilo GBP releases. We will be meeting tomorrow (Thursday) morning from in the Le Meridian to cover these. Time: 10 to 11 AM (before the Neutron sessions start) Location: Round tables (just outside the design session rooms), Floor -1, Le Meridian. Thanks, ~Sumit. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Igor Duarte Cardoso. http://igordcard.com @igordcard https://twitter.com/igordcard ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Open industry-related email from Gregory M. Lebovitz ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Reminder: No meeting this week
Wow, that's fantastic!! Do share a few details. On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: Since most folks are either freshly back from traveling, in the midst of returning, or perhaps even with a new baby, we'll be skipping this week's meeting. We'll resume next week at our normally scheduled time [1] of 1400UTC on Tuesday. Thanks! Kyle [1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Network/Meetings ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Open industry-related email from Gregory M. Lebovitz ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based Policy] Audio stream for GBP Design Session in Paris
Mandeep, thanks a ton for setting it up. I just didn't see the email before I went to sleep, so I didn't bother to get up for the session. Now I wish I had! To affirm the attempt, Yi Sun opened up a google hangout for me today in the split meeting. Even as crappy as the audio was from the mic on his laptop, it was S helpful to have an audio stream to go along with the ether pad. Think that could happen for the advanced services meetup later today at 2:30pm? Thanks again for going out of your way for me. I really appreciate it!! - Gregory On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.com wrote: As no one was online, I closed the webex session. On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.com wrote: Use this webex meeting for Audio streaming: https://cisco.webex.com/ciscosales/j.php?MTID=m210c77f6f51a6f313a7d130d19ee3e4d Topic: GBP Design Session Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 Time: 12:15 pm, Europe Time (Amsterdam, GMT+01:00) Meeting Number: 205 658 563 Meeting Password: gbp On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Gregory Lebovitz gregory.i...@gmail.com wrote: Hey all, I'm participating remotely this session. Any plan for audio stream of Tuesday's session? I'll happily offer a GoToMeeting, if needed. Would someone be willing to scribe discussion in #openstack-gbp channel? -- Open industry-related email from Gregory M. Lebovitz ___ 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 -- Open industry-related email from Gregory M. Lebovitz ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][lbaas] rescheduling meeting
I'm just a lurker, so pls don't optimize for me. FWIW, here's my reply, in order of pref: wed 1600 UTC wed 1800 UTC wed 1700 UTC On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Doug Wiegley do...@a10networks.com wrote: Hi LBaaS (and others), We’ve been talking about possibly re-schedulng the LBaaS meeting to a time to is less crazy early for those in the US. Alternately, we could also start alternating times. For now, let’s see if we can find a slot that works every week. Please respond with any time slots that you can NOT attend: Monday, 1600UTC Monday, 1700UTC Tuesday, 1600UTC (US pacific, 8am) Tuesday, 1700UTC Tuesday, 1800UTC Wednesday, 1600UTC (US pacific, 8am) Wednesday, 1700UTC Wednesday, 1800UTC Thursday, 1400UTC (US pacific, 6am) Note that many of these slots will require the approval of the #openstack-meeting-4 channel: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132629/ https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132630/ Thanks, Doug ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Open industry-related email from Gregory M. Lebovitz ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based Policy] Audio stream for GBP Design Session in Paris
Hey all, I'm participating remotely this session. Any plan for audio stream of Tuesday's session? I'll happily offer a GoToMeeting, if needed. Would someone be willing to scribe discussion in #openstack-gbp channel? -- Open industry-related email from Gregory M. Lebovitz ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [policy] [congress] Protocol for Congress -- Enactor
Summary from IRC chat 10/14/2014 on weekly meeting [1] [2] Topic: Declarative Language for Congress — Enactor/Enforcer Question: Shall we specify a declarative language for communicating policy configured in Congress to enactors / enforcement systems Hypothesis (derived at conclusion of discussion): - Specify declarative protocol and framework for describing policy with extensible attributes/value fields described in a base ontology, with additional affinity ontologies, is what is needed earlier than later, to be able to achieve it as an end-state, before too many Enactors dive into one-offs. - We could achieve that specification once we know the right structure Discussion: - Given the following framework: - Elements: - Congress - The policy description point, a place where: - (a) policy inputs are collected - (b) collected policy inputs are integrated - (c) policy is defined - (d) declares policy intent to enforcing / enacting systems - (e) observes state of environment, noting policy violations - Feeders - provides policy inputs to Congress - Enactors / Enforcers - receives policy declarations from Congress and enacts / enforces the policy according to its capabilities - E.g. Nova for VM placement, Neutron for interface connectivity, FWaaS for access control, etc. What will the protocol be for the Congress — Enactors / Enforcers? thinrichs: we’ve we've been assuming that Congress will leverage whatever the Enactors (policy engines) and Feeders (and more generally datacenter services) that exist are using. For basic datacenter services, we had planned on teaching Congress what their API is and what it does. So there's no new protocol there—we'd just use HTTP or whatever the service expects. For Enactors, there are 2 pieces: (1) what policy does Congress push and (2) what protocol does it use to do that? We don't know the answer to (1) yet. (2) is less important, I think. For (2) we could use opflex, for example, or create a new one. (1) is hard because the Enactors likely have different languages that they understand. I’m not aware of anyone thinking about (2). I’m not thinking about (2) b/c I don't know the answer to (1). The *really* hard thing to understand IMO is how these Enactors should cooperate (in terms of the information they exchange and the functionality they provide). The bits they use to wrap the messages they send while cooperating is a lower-level question. jasonsb glebo: feel the need to clarify (2) glebo: if we come out strongly with a framework spec that identifies a protocol for (2), and make it clear that Congress participants, including several data center Feeders and Enactors, are in consensus, then the other Feeders Enactors will line up, in order to be useful in the modern deployments. Either that, or they will remain isolated from the new environment, or their customers will have to create custom connectors to the new environment. It seems that we have 2 options. (a) Congress learns any language spoken by Feeders and Enactors, or (b) specifies a single protocol for Congress — Enactors policy declarations, including a highly adaptable public registry(ies) for defining the meaning of content blobs in those messages. For (a) Congress would get VERY bloated with an abstraction layer, modules, semantics and state for each different language it needed to speak. And there would be 10s of these languages. For (b), there would be one way to structure messages that were constructed of blobs in (e.g.) some sort of Type/Length/Value (TLV) method, where the Types and Values were specified in some Internet registry. jasonsb: Could we attack this from the opposite direction? E.g. if Congress wanted to provide an operational dashboard to show if things are in compliance, it would be better served by receiving the state and stats from the Enactors in a single protocol. Could a dashboard like this be a carrot to lure the various players into a single protocol for Congress — Enactor? glebo jasonsb: If Congress has to give Enactors precise instructions on what to do, then Congress will bloat, having to have intelligence about each Enactor type, and hold its state and such. If Congress can deliver generalized policy declarations, and the Enactor is responsible for interpreting it, and applying it, and gathering and analyzing the state so that it knows how to react, then the intelligence and state that it is specialized in knowing will live in the Enactor. A smaller Congress is better, and this provides cleaner “layering” of the problem space overall. thinrichs: would love to see a single (2) language, but doesn’t see that as a practical solution in the short term, dubious that anyone will use Congress if it only works when all of the Enactors speak the Congress language. It’s an insertion question. glebo: the key is NOT the bits on the wire,
