14:00:26 <yushiro> #startmeeting fwaas
14:00:27 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Jul  4 14:00:26 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is yushiro. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:00:28 <reedip_> Hi
14:00:29 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
14:00:31 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'fwaas'
14:00:41 <SarathMekala> hi all O/
14:00:54 <yushiro> #chair xgerman_ yushiro
14:00:55 <openstack> Current chairs: xgerman_ yushiro
14:01:09 <reedip_> SridarK not joining today?
14:02:01 <yushiro> reedip_, I don't know that.... OK, I'll add Sridar a cheir if he come :)
14:02:06 <yushiro> OK, let's begin.
14:02:11 <reedip_> Sure
14:02:13 <yushiro> #topic Pike
14:02:28 <SridarK> Hi All
14:02:32 <reedip_> Chair SridarK ;)
14:02:34 <yushiro> Hi SridarK  :)
14:02:41 <yushiro> #chair SridarK yushiro xgerman_
14:02:42 <openstack> Current chairs: SridarK xgerman_ yushiro
14:02:56 <reedip_> Ok , let's start then, pike
14:02:56 <SridarK> sorry we are off today and running a bit late
14:03:21 <yushiro> SridarK, oh, it's no problem just started :)
14:03:23 <reedip_> No issues SridarK
14:03:36 <yushiro> #topic l2-support
14:03:36 <SridarK> yes local holiday in the US
14:03:38 <doude> hi
14:03:56 <SridarK> i think chandan should be back this week
14:04:01 <reedip_> Oh yeah it's the Independence day
14:04:04 <yushiro> SridarK, ah, today is famous holiday. I know it :)
14:04:13 <SridarK> yes indeed :-)
14:04:28 <SarathMekala> yes, he should be back tomorrow
14:04:47 <yushiro> SarathMekala, that's good news :)
14:04:55 <reedip_> Ok, back to L2 support? yushiro do you need to add anything ?
14:05:01 <SarathMekala> 'Independence day' is the day on which the US president saved the earth from aliens ;)
14:05:09 <SridarK> so with that we should have some more progress this week
14:05:19 <yushiro> regarding l2-side, sorry I don't have any update.
14:05:20 <reedip_> No that's Independence Day : Resurgence
14:05:48 <yushiro> we need to merge https://review.openstack.org/#/c/478719/ before.
14:05:53 <reedip_> No issues, once Chandanc is back we would have some acceleratio
14:06:02 <yushiro> reedip_, and I are focusing now.
14:06:21 <reedip_> I have mentioned all the exceptions in the paste link
14:06:40 <reedip_> So now we know which ones are common and which arent
14:06:55 <yushiro> reedip_, thanks for your link  http://paste.openstack.org/show/614364/  here is a link reedip_ pasted about fwaas exceptions
14:07:22 <reedip_> yamamoto and amotoki : request you to please provide your review comments. I have mentioned the exceptions in the review patch
14:07:54 <SridarK> yes indeed - it will be good to keep them separate - but my rationale was also that v1 is something we will remove and we had a few common ones
14:08:22 <SridarK> but in keeping them separte is defn cleaner - and we can drop the v1 file at a later point
14:08:33 <reedip_> SridarK , considering that Firewall rules and Firewall policy exceptions are common between v1 and v2
14:08:43 <amotoki> are you all confident you and driver developers are not confused by having v1 and v2 exceptions? that is my main point.
14:08:58 <reedip_> I doubt we would have too many differing exceptions
14:09:22 <xgerman_> Also v1 should not see much development
14:09:29 <reedip_> amotoki: there are few exceptions specific to v1 and v2
14:09:49 <reedip_> Several exceptions are common
14:09:57 <amotoki> is around 10 few?
14:10:20 <reedip_> amotoki : you counted them?? :)
14:10:31 <amotoki> reedip_: i see your paste
14:11:15 <amotoki> v1 API is deprecated and frozen. if we have common exception definition for v1 and v2, you need to review carefully v2 exception changes without affecting v1 ones
14:11:23 <amotoki> including error messages
14:11:37 <reedip_> amotoki : I removed the recurrence and just determined the various exception classes. We do have common exceptions as well. And considering v1 is deprecated, we can focus on V2 exceptions primarily
14:11:46 <amotoki> personally I am have confidence on it
14:11:47 <reedip_> amotoki: that's correct
14:12:13 <yushiro> v1 only: 4 exceptions,   v2 only: 7 exceptions  others: common
14:13:11 <reedip_> yushiro : if the v1 and v2 exceptions have the same error message, I think that would give confidence to amotoki
14:13:40 <amotoki> one way to clarify v1 and v2 is to have common exceptions/_fwaas.py and import it from exceptions/fwaas_v[12].py.
14:13:51 <reedip_> Because his primary concer may be that we donot change v2 exceptions without considering v1 ones.a
14:14:17 <reedip_> amotoki : so create 3 files?
14:14:27 <amotoki> just my idea
14:14:42 <yushiro> +1
14:15:03 <SridarK> amotoki: valid point - at the risk of have some repetition for now - will be clean to remove the v1 stuff when we deprecate
14:15:11 <reedip_> amotoki: nice idea
14:15:36 <yushiro> After we totally remove v1,  we migrate all exceptions into exceptions/fwaas.py
14:15:50 <reedip_> Ok, let's put up a new patch by end of this meetinf
14:15:55 <SridarK> the different ones will be primarily on firewall vs firewall group
14:16:07 <SridarK> we may overlap on rules on policies
14:16:12 <yushiro> SridarK, sure.
14:16:13 <reedip_> yushiro: that's a different thing, which we can decide once we remove v1
14:16:32 <reedip_> One exception is for.firewallrouterinsertion
14:16:32 <amotoki> during the review, I noticed we sometimes use firewall and firewall group in a same context
14:16:39 <reedip_> What.about that
14:16:51 <reedip_> amotoki that's v1 vs v2
14:17:03 <SridarK> amotoki: ^^ yes that is the reason
14:17:46 <amotoki> reedip_: for example, if you see FirewallRuleInUse in the proposed neutron-lib review, it says "Router(s) %(router_ids)s is already associated with other Firewall(s)."
14:17:50 <SridarK> fireallrouterinsertion is only relevant for v1
14:18:01 <amotoki> reedip_: but there is no 'Firewall" in v2. we have 'Firewall Group" only
14:18:34 <amotoki> you say FirewallRuleInUse is common, but the message cannot be shared.
14:18:54 <reedip_> amotoki : hmm, yes
14:19:01 <SridarK> amotoki: for the RuleInUse - we will need some tweaks there - once we have L2 as well and also talk in terms of router ports
14:19:50 <amotoki> my point is from the point of API term definitions.
14:20:16 <reedip_> SridarK : should we put so much effort ?
14:21:00 <SridarK> reedip_: that was my thought too - but if this not too bad - then we can keep it clean
14:21:07 <xgerman_> Yes. People switch slowly
14:21:29 <reedip__> SridarK , xgerman_ : Simple fix : Move fwaas v1 exception and fwaas _v2 exception into 2 different files
14:21:48 <reedip__> when v1 is removed, just remove the v1 file with firewall router insertion exception file
14:22:00 <xgerman_> +1
14:22:05 <reedip__> SridarK, xgerman_ : Second solution : Merge all exceptions in the single file
14:22:16 <SridarK> reedip__: yes that would work ur first proposal
14:22:18 <reedip__> thats what we are doing right now
14:22:29 <reedip__> amotoki : I think you would also favor the first idea
14:22:43 <amotoki> yes
14:22:56 <amotoki> when i first reviewed it, i did not think so deeply. but after discussing you all on it more deeply i started to think having separate modues is better for easy maintenance.
14:23:11 <reedip__> amotoki : same with me :)
14:23:18 <SarathMekala> +1
14:23:40 <reedip__> ok, lets put up the patch and move on. L2 support yushiro :)
14:23:45 <yushiro> OK, so ,  we should split v1 and v2 exceptions  and split files
14:23:51 <reedip__> yep
14:24:08 <amotoki> note that having common file is just optional
14:24:34 <SridarK> +1 - reedip__ i think we can keep it simple - if there is some redundant stuff that is fine too
14:25:15 <SridarK> and we can remove the v1 file when we eol v1
14:25:18 <amotoki> one question: does neutron-lib patch block some effort in fwaas side?
14:25:20 <yushiro> amotoki, yes.  We'll check carefully like 'RuleInUse' case ..
14:25:43 <reedip__> amotoki : it kind of does
14:26:17 <reedip__> there are some patches in fwaas which depends on the neutron-lib patch
14:26:18 <yushiro> amotoki, last week, Jenkins job didn't work correctly even if I specified 'Depends-On'
14:26:36 <SridarK> i think mainly we want to also move fwd to undo the revert from neutron-lib
14:26:47 <reedip__> +1 SridarK
14:27:19 <yushiro> +1  we should solve it regarding networking-midonet too.
14:27:45 <SridarK> ok good i think we have a plan
14:27:47 <amotoki> yushiro: neutron-lib is maintained under upper-constraints, so Depends-On neutron-lib patch does not work now
14:28:10 <reedip__> yushiro  did find that issue last week :)
14:28:17 <yushiro> amotoki, I see.
14:28:20 <amotoki> it is a known pain point, but we need to explore how..
14:28:28 <yushiro> reedip__, awesome :)
14:28:53 <reedip__> amotoki : do we need the docstring ?
14:28:54 <reedip__> :)
14:29:23 <amotoki> reedip__: I think it depends on a situation.
14:29:30 <reedip__> amotoki
14:29:40 <reedip__> amotoki : ok
14:29:50 <amotoki> if we have same content in docstring and message, i am not sure it is useful...
14:30:12 <amotoki> if we have,i think docstring provides more detail description.
14:30:46 <yushiro> aha, like RuleInUse for v1 and v2, it may enough only 'messages = '
14:31:41 <reedip__> SridarK , if firewallRouterInsertion is only for fwaas_v1, should we have a new file for it or keep it in firewall_V1 ?
14:32:01 <SridarK> i think keep it simple lets put it in v1
14:32:05 <reedip__> amotoki : FirewallRouterInsertion is a different extension but only used with fwaas_v1
14:32:07 <yushiro> +1
14:32:26 <reedip__> ok
14:32:35 <amotoki> reedip__: not sure about FirewallRouterInsertion? did I raise something on it?
14:32:41 <reedip__> I am putting up the new iteration
14:32:59 <reedip__> amotoki : no, you didnt. I was just giving the information as JFYI :)
14:33:11 <amotoki> reedip__: i see
14:33:49 <yushiro> reedip__, OK, let's determine how we split files for exceptions.  1: v1, v2  or  2:v1, common, v2
14:34:02 <yushiro> in this meeting
14:34:44 <reedip__> yushiro : 1
14:34:50 <reedip__> v1 and v2
14:34:56 <yushiro> +1  I think 'simple is the best' too
14:35:03 <reedip__> its easeir to remove
14:35:04 <yushiro> OK!!
14:35:21 <yushiro> so, we can move forward.
14:35:36 <amotoki> :)
14:35:48 <yushiro> OK, next topic.
14:36:19 <yushiro> #topic Horizon support
14:36:30 <yushiro> SarathMekala, :)
14:36:53 <SarathMekala> amotoki, has given review comments on my patch
14:36:58 <SarathMekala> thanks amotoki
14:37:17 <yushiro> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/475840/
14:37:27 <SarathMekala> I am working on them.. will post an update soon.. I could not spend much time this week
14:37:40 <amotoki> SarathMekala: I fixed your patch on points related to dashboard split out
14:37:58 <SarathMekala> yes, thanks amotoki
14:38:18 <amotoki> SarathMekala: I think all remaining things are not directly related to the dashboard spit out. if you have trouble to fixing them let me know
14:38:26 <SarathMekala> did you get a chance to try out the dashboard...
14:38:45 <amotoki> me?
14:38:58 <SarathMekala> yes.. you can try it out with tox
14:39:19 <amotoki> I haven't tried it yet. I have pending horizon reviews on trunk and qos..
14:39:32 <SarathMekala> ok
14:40:02 <amotoki> i have some annoncement on v1 stuff
14:40:16 <SarathMekala> amotoki, go ahead
14:40:24 <amotoki> horizon fwaas stuff has been dropped yesterday
14:40:50 <hoangcx_> amotoki: SarathMekala Today I tried the new repository with v1 to make sure it run but failed
14:40:51 <amotoki> second, i believe the split out dashboard works well
14:41:23 <amotoki> hoangcx_: really? let me share the detail
14:42:11 <amotoki> third, (if any pending issues) I'd like to release the first neutron-fwaas-dashboard this week or the next.
14:42:54 <amotoki> hoangcx_: I will test it with the latest horizon and fwaas-dashboard tomorrow
14:42:58 <hoangcx_> amotoki: Yeah. I follow this guide: https://github.com/openstack/neutron-fwaas-dashboard/tree/master/devstack#how-to-enable-fwaas-v1-dsashboard
14:43:06 <hoangcx_> amotoki: OK, thanks
14:43:33 <amotoki> hoangcx_: thanks for trying it
14:43:57 <hoangcx_> In case it run, I will continue with v2 patch from SarathMekala
14:44:16 <hoangcx_> that's all from me
14:44:22 <SarathMekala> hoangcx_, I havent tried v2 patch via the devstack flow
14:44:46 <SarathMekala> I will resend the instructions to try out the dashboard to the team, you can try it out
14:45:10 <hoangcx_> SarathMekala: OK. Thank you. eventually that is our intention :-)
14:45:29 <amotoki> SarathMekala: updates on in-tree doc and/or devstack plugin would be great :)
14:45:30 <SarathMekala> yes
14:45:55 <SarathMekala> sure amotoki, i will work on it this week
14:46:05 <SarathMekala> will ping you on mail if i face any issues
14:46:15 <yushiro> +1
14:46:20 <robcresswell> I tend to write simple bash scripts to let people install plugins easily, on the couple I've done before :)
14:46:28 <robcresswell> It helps when you want non-UI folk to test
14:46:56 <SarathMekala> hi robcresswell :)
14:47:00 <robcresswell> o/
14:47:20 <robcresswell> Something like https://github.com/openstack/horizon-cisco-ui/blob/master/dev_install.sh, can be quite handy to get people started quicker.
14:47:45 <robcresswell> For simple installations/ trials, ofc.
14:47:56 <robcresswell> Anyway, sorry for interruption, just wanted to reference that :)
14:48:12 <reedip__> thanks robcresswell .... this might work well
14:48:17 <SarathMekala> :) thanks for the info
14:48:25 <yushiro> robcresswell, no warries :)
14:48:39 <SridarK> robcresswell: u are always welcome to drop in and join the party anytime :-)
14:48:48 <robcresswell> \o/
14:48:54 <yushiro> robcresswell, thanks for your good information :)
14:49:37 <SarathMekala> yushiro, go ahead.. nothing more from my side
14:49:44 <yushiro> SarathMekala, OK, thanks
14:49:50 <yushiro> #topic Stadium Compliance
14:50:10 <yushiro> anything else to discuss?  I think  it is OK to skip.
14:50:32 <SridarK> i think we are on track - to undo the revert in steps
14:50:41 <SridarK> reedip__: thx for taking this on
14:50:52 <reedip__> SridarK : you already thanked me last week !
14:50:55 <reedip__> :D
14:50:58 <SridarK> :-)
14:51:03 <reedip__> let me complete it first
14:51:22 <SridarK> an extra thx will cause no pain as opposed to the lack of gratitude
14:51:24 <amotoki> if you have any update on the stadium compliance, feel free to send a patch on fwaas stautus to neutron-specs
14:51:24 <SridarK> :-)
14:51:42 <yushiro> yes
14:51:43 <amotoki> with title like "pike assessment".
14:51:50 <reedip__> amotoki : Yes, we are trying to press it up
14:52:20 <hoangcx_> Like this one: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/452032/
14:52:41 <SridarK> reedip__: and if we need to get together for some group debugging or discussion pls feel free to propose this time on any day
14:52:44 <yushiro> OK, let's keep on reviewing migration/revert patch for neutron-lib.
14:53:33 <yushiro> #topic performance improvement
14:53:38 <reedip__> right now lets get the neutron lib patch merged first
14:53:46 <SridarK> +1
14:53:49 <yushiro> reedip__, +1
14:54:02 <yushiro> hoangcx_, anything else to inform?
14:54:08 <hoangcx_> yushiro: I think we can drop this topic until FWaaS v2 is in shape as we are almost done for v1
14:54:26 <yushiro> hoangcx_, OK.  I think so too.
14:54:38 <yushiro> 6 minutes left.
14:54:38 <hoangcx_> I and cuongnv now are adopting the solution to SG in neutron
14:54:57 <hoangcx_> almost OK, just waiting for review from neutron cores
14:55:01 <SridarK> hoangcx_: are u targetting this for Pike ?
14:55:13 <hoangcx_> Yes. for SG
14:55:18 <SridarK> great
14:55:20 <hoangcx_> SridarK: That is my intention
14:55:39 <yushiro> hoangcx_, and coungnv are superman :)
14:55:45 <SridarK> +1
14:55:57 <yushiro> #topic Open Discussion
14:56:12 <amotoki> i have some announcement on my docs hat.
14:56:23 <yushiro> amotoki, sure.
14:56:41 <amotoki> as you may know, doc-migration spec is ongoing and the latest status was post by doug http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-July/119221.html
14:57:03 <amotoki> /developer/<project> will be redirected to /<project>/latest now
14:57:28 <amotoki> we also need to move our contents to the new standard proposed in http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/docs-specs/specs/pike/os-manuals-migration.html
14:57:43 <amotoki> is anyone interested in working on this?
14:58:11 <amotoki> i can propose a patch but need someone familiar with the current status of the document.
14:58:45 <yushiro> +1
14:58:49 <amotoki> feel free to ping me if you are interested.
14:59:07 <SridarK> amotoki: ok lets see how we can take this on
14:59:18 <SridarK> amotoki: thx for the info
14:59:23 <doude> Hi, I opened a bug about that fwaas service plugin does not offer a plugable backend driver mechanism and is hard linked to the Neutron DB model
14:59:25 <yushiro> folks, let me cleanup our meeting agenda's topic in #openstack-fwaas
14:59:26 <reedip__> amotoki : please provide your reviews on https://review.openstack.org/#/c/478719/11  .
14:59:31 <doude> https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1702312
14:59:32 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1702312 in neutron "[FWaaS v2] Does not work with core plugin non based on Neutron DB model" [Undecided,New]
14:59:43 <reedip__> doude : saw that bug, but need to discuss more on it
14:59:43 <SridarK> doude: thx
14:59:44 <doude> I have a code draft to propose
14:59:46 <yushiro> doude, thanks for your link
14:59:58 <doude> not yet push some bug persits for the moment
15:00:02 <SridarK> doude: lets discuss on launchpad
15:00:06 <doude> ok
15:00:08 <yushiro> oh, this is time.
15:00:10 <SridarK> also quickly on PTG
15:00:11 <yushiro> #endmeeting