Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based Policy] Audio stream for GBP Design Session in Paris

2014-11-04 Thread Mandeep Dhami
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,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Policy][Group-based Policy] Audio stream for GBP Design Session in Paris

2014-11-04 Thread Mandeep Dhami
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

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS][Octavia] Octavia's API becoming spun out LBaaS

2014-10-27 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Hi Kyle: Are you scheduling an on-demand meeting, or are you proposing that the agenda for next neutron meeting include this as an on-demand item? Regards, Mandeep On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Sumit Naiksatam

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Group-based Policy next steps

2014-09-11 Thread Mandeep Dhami
I agree with Kevin. Any option in-tree or in-incubator would need core review time, and they are already oversubscribed with nova parity issues (for Juno). So the only option to continue collaboration on experimenting with policy based networking on current openstack is on stackforge (option 5).

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Group-based Policy next steps

2014-09-05 Thread Mandeep Dhami
I agree. Also, as this does not preclude using the incubator when it is ready, this is a good way to start iterating on implementation in parallel with those issues being addressed by the community. In my view, the issues raised around the incubator were significant enough (around packaging,

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] [neutron] Specs for K release

2014-08-28 Thread Mandeep Dhami
+1 I agree that this is a good idea. Regards, Mandeep On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/28/2014 12:50 PM, Michael Still wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Author tags

2014-08-27 Thread Mandeep Dhami
T hese should all be comment changes, so there should be no impact. While I agree that it is late for J3, IMO this is the type of change (minor/comment only) that should be OK J4 rather than wait for Kilo. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 27,

Re: [openstack-dev] [infra] [neutron] [tc] Neutron Incubator workflow

2014-08-27 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Also note that one of the features of the incubator is that it can be packaged/released independently (like python-neutronclient) and a feature branch is not designed for that workflow. Regards, Mandeep On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Jeremy Stanley fu...@yuggoth.org wrote: On 2014-08-27

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Incubator concerns from packaging perspective

2014-08-25 Thread Mandeep Dhami
+1 I agree with Pradeep and Doug that a new namespace makes for a better structure for packaging and usage. Regards, Mandeep - On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann d...@doughellmann.com wrote: On Aug 23, 2014, at 5:36 PM, Maru Newby ma...@redhat.com wrote: On Aug 23,

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Spec exceptions are closed, FPF is August 21

2014-08-01 Thread Mandeep Dhami
. Regards, Rudra On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.com wrote: Hi Kyle: As -2 is sticky, and as there exists a possibility that the original core might not get time to get back to re-reviewing his, do you think that there should be clearer guidelines on it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Spec exceptions are closed, FPF is August 21

2014-07-31 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Hi Kyle: As -2 is sticky, and as there exists a possibility that the original core might not get time to get back to re-reviewing his, do you think that there should be clearer guidelines on it's usage (to avoid what you identified as dropping of the balls)? Salvatore had a good guidance in a

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Bridging the 2-group gap in group policy

2014-07-30 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Hi Ryan: As I stated in the patch review, the suggestion to use a profiled API like IETF/CCITT is indeed very interesting. As a profiled API has not been tried with any neutron model before, and as there is no existing design pattern/best practices for how best to structure that, my

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Spec exceptions are closed, FPF is August 21

2014-07-30 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Also, can I recommend that to avoid last minute rush of all the code in Juno-3 (and then clogging up the gate at that time), we work as a team to re-review patches that have addressed all previously identified issues? For example, the for the GBP plugin, the first series of patches have been

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] [not-only-neutron] How to Contribute upstream in OpenStack Neutron

2014-07-26 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Wow! These are the exact questions that I have struggled with. Thanks for stating them so clearly. Regards, Mandeep - On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Luke Gorrie l...@snabb.co wrote: On 25 July 2014 20:05, Stefano Maffulli stef...@openstack.org wrote: Indeed, communication is key.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Specs approved for Juno-3 and exceptions

2014-07-26 Thread Mandeep Dhami
wrote: On 07/25/2014 05:48 PM, Mandeep Dhami wrote: Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful. Also, would it help the process by having some clear guidelines/expectations around review time as well? In particular, if you have put a -1 or -2, and the issues that you have identified have

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Specs approved for Juno-3 and exceptions

2014-07-25 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful. Also, would it help the process by having some clear guidelines/expectations around review time as well? In particular, if you have put a -1 or -2, and the issues that you have identified have been addressed by an update (or at least the original

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Specs approved for Juno-3 and exceptions

2014-07-25 Thread Mandeep Dhami
, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.com wrote: Thanks for the deck Jay, that is very helpful. Also, would it help the process by having some clear guidelines/expectations around review time as well? In particular

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Network tomography

2014-05-23 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Hi Artem: Can you provide reference to that network tomography work? I would be interested in a follow up. In a vendor specific plugin, I have used LLDPs for link discovery using LLDPs (and by transitivity, the ToR discovery), but I did not build a more complete topology view since neutron does

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] Should we revisit the priority of group-based policy?

2014-05-23 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Thanks Paul. Feedback like this, from actual users of neutron in large deployments, is the very reason why I feel so strongly that we need to keep this a high priority work item. Regards, Mandeep On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 9:28 AM, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote: Mohammad Banikazemi wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Seeking opinions on scope of code refactoring...

2014-05-23 Thread Mandeep Dhami
My preferences: For where, I'd go with Gary's recommendation (A) for two reasons (1) Consistency and (2) I don't think it will create any boilerplate requirements since the abstract class provides the default implementation. For naming, I'd prefer to go with ML2 terminology for two reasons (1)

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] Should we revisit the priority of group-based policy?

2014-05-22 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Maru's concerns are that: 1. It is large 2. It is complex And Armando's related concerns are: 3. Could dev/review cycles be better spent on refactoring 4. If refactored neutron was available, would a simpler option become more viable Let me address them in that order. 1. Re: It is large Group

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core API refactoring

2014-05-22 Thread Mandeep Dhami
OK On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Collins, Sean sean_colli...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:47:16PM EDT, Mandeep Dhami wrote: The update from Sean seem to suggest to me that we needed blueprints only if the public API changes, and not for design changes

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] Should we revisit the priority of group-based policy?

2014-05-22 Thread Mandeep Dhami
22, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Maru Newby ma...@redhat.com wrote: On May 22, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.com wrote: Maru's concerns are that: 1. It is large 2. It is complex As per the discussion in the irc meeting today, I hope it is clear now that eventual size

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] Should we revisit the priority of group-based policy?

2014-05-22 Thread Mandeep Dhami
OK. On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Maru Newby ma...@redhat.com wrote: On May 22, 2014, at 4:35 PM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.com wrote: each patch needs to receive core reviewer attention and that subsequent patches incorporate their feedback. At least two core neutron

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][group-based-policy] Should we revisit the priority of group-based policy?

2014-05-22 Thread Mandeep Dhami
represents that side himself. Regards, Mandeep On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 May 2014 13:59, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.com wrote: Maru's concerns are that: 1. It is large 2. It is complex And Armando's related concerns are: 3

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core API refactoring

2014-05-21 Thread Mandeep Dhami
AM, Collins, Sean sean_colli...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 05:18:57PM EDT, Mandeep Dhami wrote: Renewing the thread, is there a blueprint for this refactoring effort? In the email thread till now, we have just had an etherpad link. I would like to get more deeply

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core API refactoring

2014-05-21 Thread Mandeep Dhami
effort, which is merely a replacement of the home-grown wsgi framework neutron is ​ ​ running today. ​I understand. Regards, Mandeep On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Salvatore Orlando sorla...@nicira.comwrote: Some comments inline, Salvatore On 21 May 2014 15:23, Mandeep Dhami dh

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core API refactoring

2014-05-20 Thread Mandeep Dhami
summit is going to be a significant barrier to participation in this critical effort. Regards, Mandeep On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.comwrote: Thanks for the link, Fawad. I had actually seen the etherpad, but I was hoping that there was a design document

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][neutron][mysql] IMPORTANT: MySQL Galera does *not* support SELECT ... FOR UPDATE

2014-05-19 Thread Mandeep Dhami
On a side note, I'm rather ignorant on python frameworks for distributed coordination... concoord? Is zookeper something that should be ruled out because of language restrictions? I have not used zookeeper, so there might be reasons to use it where we have to write java code, but as long as

[openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core API refactoring

2014-05-15 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Hi: I am not at the conference this week, but it is my understanding that there was a proposal for neutron core API refactoring discussed yesterday. I am trying to catch up with that discussion, is there a formal design description or blueprint that I can review? Thanks, Mandeep -

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Core API refactoring

2014-05-15 Thread Mandeep Dhami
] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/refactoring-the-neutron-core Thanks, Fawad Khaliq (m) +1 408.966.2214 On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.comwrote: Hi: I am not at the conference this week, but it is my understanding that there was a proposal for neutron

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] ServiceVM IRC meeting minutes May 6 (was Re: [Neutron] ServiceVM IRC meeting(May 6 Tuesday 5:00(AM)UTC-))

2014-05-07 Thread Mandeep Dhami
I think that might an issue of access to google docs from China (in general, not an issue specific to this document). On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Isaku Yamahata isaku.yamah...@gmail.comwrote: Hi. The document is - public on the web - anyone can comment So I don't think it's due to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][ml2] Etherpad for the design session on Modular L2 Agents

2014-05-06 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Thanks Mohammad, this is sorely needed. I will update ether pad for our needs. Regards, Mandeep On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Mohammad Banikazemi m...@us.ibm.com wrote: Thanks for the suggestion. That's what I plan to do next (barring other possible suggestions). While the sharing is

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] explanations on the current state of config file handling

2014-05-04 Thread Mandeep Dhami
I second the conf.d model. Regards, Mandeep On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 10:13 AM, John Dickinson m...@not.mn wrote: To add some color, Swift supports both single conf files and conf.d directory-based configs. See

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Updates to the template for Neutron BPs

2014-04-21 Thread Mandeep Dhami
Just for clarification. Jenkins link in the description puts the generated HTML in the section Juno approved specs even tho' the blueprint is still being reviewed. Am I looking at the right link? Regards, Mandeep On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 10:54 PM, Mike Scherbakov mscherba...@mirantis.comwrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Updates to the template for Neutron BPs

2014-04-21 Thread Mandeep Dhami
: Yes. It shows up in the approved section since it's just a build of the patch as-is. The link is titled gate-neutron-specs-docs in the message from Jenkins. -- Kevin Benton On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Mandeep Dhami dh...@noironetworks.comwrote: Just for clarification. Jenkins link

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] review hour?

2014-04-21 Thread Mandeep Dhami
+1 On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 8:54 AM, mar...@redhat.com mandr...@redhat.comwrote: On 21/04/14 18:29, Kyle Mestery wrote: On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:38 AM, mar...@redhat.com mandr...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, I think both PTL candidates mentioned process improvements wrt contributions and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] review hour?

2014-04-21 Thread Mandeep Dhami
If scaling becomes the issue, you can always do review at sub-team level with at least two cores in each review meeting (say neutron-parity, ML2, Services, LBaaS, etc). But probably best to start with one meeting and hit that scale issue first. Regards, Mandeep On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:20 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Interest in discussing vendor plugins for L3 services?

2014-02-12 Thread Mandeep Dhami
I would be interested as well (UTC-8). Regards, Mandeep On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Eugene Nikanorov enikano...@mirantis.comwrote: I'd be interested too. Thanks, Eugene. On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Carl Baldwin c...@ecbaldwin.net wrote: Paul, I'm interesting in joining