Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
On 02/18/2015 02:31 AM, Marc Koderer wrote: Hello everyone, We already got good feedback on my sandbox test review. So I would like to move forward. With review [1] we will get a stackforge repo called „telcowg-usecases“. Submitting a usecase will then follow the process of OpenStack development (see [2]). Excellent. :) The is one thing currently open: Anita suggested to rename our IRC channel from #openstack-nfv to #openstack-telcowg which seems logical to me. If we agree to this I will register the channel and we can move forward. ++ Best, -jay ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
[Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
Hello everyone, we are currently facing the issue that we don’t know how to proceed with our telco WG use cases. There are many of them already defined but the reviews via Etherpad doesn’t seem to work. I suggest to do a review on them with the usual OpenStack tooling. Therefore I uploaded one of them (Session Border Controller) to the Gerrit system into the sandbox repo: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/152940/1 I would really like to see how many review we can get on it. If this works out my idea is the following: - we create a project under Stackforge called telcowg-usecases - we link blueprint related to this use case - we build a core team and approve/prioritize them Regards Marc ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
- Original Message - From: George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different problems, different terminology. Hi George, The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you might consider normal operators, or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing. We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a shame. Thanks, Steve ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote: - Original Message - From: George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different problems, different terminology. Hi George, The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you might consider normal operators, or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing. We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a shame. I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need them for my job. Sorry. Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently. Like some operators have indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you are coming from. I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some comments. But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI. -- Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc. Jabber: paul.belan...@polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode) Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pabelanger ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
On 2/6/15 12:09 PM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote: -Original Message- From: Paul Belanger [mailto:paul.belan...@polybeacon.com] Sent: 06 February 2015 18:52 To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote: - Original Message - From: George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different problems, different terminology. Hi George, The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you might consider normal operators, or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing. We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a shame. I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need them for my job. Sorry. Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently. Like some operators have indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you are coming from. I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some comments. But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI. I find a risk in splitting our community into too many pieces. The High Performance needs are different from the Telcos from the Finance sector but I think we can learn hugely from others. The work that Telcos do for SR-IOV and low latency is a major benefit for the HPC Infiniband use cases. Best of all is if we can make our requirements sufficiently generic to cover multiple user communities. So, Let's tag the subject lines with [telco] so people can skip if they wish but I think we have lots in common to run production clouds even if the final businesses are different. Tim I would agree. We are doing the same thing with the Large Deployments Team - keeping a group of folks focused on issues, wants, needs of large OpenStack deployments, but doing it as much as possible within the larger Ops community with some of the same tactics as mentioned above. Thanks! VW -- Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc. Jabber: paul.belan...@polybeacon.com | IRC: pabelanger (Freenode) Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pabelanger ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
Re: [Openstack-operators] [Telco][NFV][infra] Review process of TelcoWG use cases
- Original Message - From: Paul Belanger paul.belan...@polybeacon.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM, George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/06/2015 04:12 PM, Steve Gordon wrote: - Original Message - From: George Shuklin george.shuk...@gmail.com To: openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org Sorry guys. I think most of the ops here have no idea what you talking about. Telcos is telcos, ops is ops. Different worlds, different problems, different terminology. Hi George, The telco working group is intended to bridge the gap between telcommunications operators and the openstack community, something we've been working on in some form since Atlanta. Once you boil away the TLAs many of their core requirements are not significantly different for what you might consider normal operators, or at least operators in other verticals like high performance computing. We primarily communicated on the -dev list prior to Paris but the feedback we got in the session there (on the operators track no less!) was that most people involved were more comfortable communicating in the context of the operators M/L than mixed in with the development traffic. If certain types of operators are not welcome in the openstack operators community then I think that would be a shame. I think it not really possible. If you talking about 'openstack' as 'Openstack developers', may be. But for operators all telco stuff is just completely foreign. I do not understand what they doing and I don't need them for my job. Sorry. Interesting, I was actually talking for some friends about the business of 'telco' and OpenStack recently. Like some operators have indicated, the world of 'telco' is foreign to them but since my background come from the VoIP / telco environment I can see where you are coming from. I'm going to look at your proposal, and see if I can make some comments. But, I am personally interested in this topic, more as a FYI. Right, and on face value many of the use cases are still too far removed in terms of domain specific language, acronyms, etc. from where we want them to be to be broadly understandable and actionable - but we're trying to start somewhere and work on that :). I think the more broadly applicable/interesting conversation from Marc's original question is how/where are operators coming at OpenStack from other directions documenting their use cases that they ultimately want to drive changes or new features in OpenStack with for community consumption? Thanks, Steve ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
