18:00:37 <bh526r> #startmeeting gluon
18:00:38 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Nov  2 18:00:37 2016 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is bh526r. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:39 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:00:41 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'gluon'
18:00:49 <bh526r> Hi guys
18:01:07 <Jeffreyc42> Hi Bin
18:01:07 <bh526r> #topic Roll Call
18:01:14 <bh526r> Hi Jeff
18:01:15 <jinli> Hi everyone
18:01:20 <bh526r> #info Bin Hu
18:01:23 <georgk> #info Georg Kunz
18:01:25 <bh526r> Hi Jin
18:01:26 <Jeffreyc42> #info Jeff Collins
18:01:28 <NikoHermannsEric> #info Nikolas Hermanns
18:01:30 <bh526r> Hi Georg
18:01:36 <jinli> #info JinLi
18:01:39 <bh526r> Hi Niko
18:01:44 <juanmafg> #info Juanma Fernandez
18:01:58 <bh526r> Hi Juanma, welcome on board
18:02:03 <tomhambleton> #info Tom Hambleton
18:02:07 <bh526r> Hi Tom
18:02:13 <tomhambleton> Hi
18:02:20 <kamal___> #info Kamal Hussain
18:02:21 <juanmafg> Hi
18:02:25 <juanmafg> thanks
18:02:37 <bh526r> #topic Admin Update
18:02:42 <bh526r> Hi Kamal
18:02:47 <kamal___> Hi Bin
18:02:53 <bh526r> #info No update
18:03:08 <bh526r> #topic Summary of OpenStack Summit
18:03:36 <bh526r> #info We have had great demonstration and discussion last week in Barcelona
18:04:10 <bh526r> #info Many participants showed their proof-of-concept of Gluon with various SDN controllers in their booths
18:04:29 <bh526r> #info We also had good discussion in join Nova-Neutron session
18:04:49 <bh526r> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ocata-nova-neutron-session
18:05:21 <bh526r> #info above link is the etherpad of join Nova-Neutron session. And Gluon discussion is at the end
18:06:19 <bh526r> #info The feature "Add the information Nova requires for a port to the port itself" will be pursued
18:06:31 <bh526r> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/390513/
18:06:51 <krenczewski> Hi all
18:07:12 <bh526r> #info And another feature "Late allocation of IPs during VIF binding" is already supported in Newton
18:07:22 <bh526r> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/390511/
18:07:34 <bh526r> #info we need to test and verify it
18:08:03 <bh526r> #info Ian will follow up, and also work on related pieces in Neutron
18:08:37 <bh526r> #info We also worked out our Ocata work plan on Friday
18:08:40 <bh526r> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ocata-gluon-work-plan
18:09:13 <bh526r> #info Above link gives tasks, comments and assigned resources
18:09:32 <bh526r> Anything more from summit you want to add?
18:10:09 <NikoHermannsEric> Ok from my side
18:10:28 <bh526r> Great. Let's switch gear to review patches
18:10:34 <bh526r> #topic Patch Review
18:10:56 <NikoHermannsEric> Bin, did you add sfc to the agenda?
18:11:09 <bh526r> #info Jin's patch "Test Case Proposal"
18:11:14 <bh526r> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/388821/
18:11:32 <bh526r> I think Paul had some comments. Jin, will you be able to address Paul's comments?
18:12:00 <bh526r> Niko - at the end.
18:12:25 <bh526r> Brady also said he may not join us
18:13:16 <bh526r> #info Jin is not available. So move on to next patch
18:13:29 <bh526r> #info Tom's Patch "Example Shim Server Improvements"
18:13:40 <bh526r> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/390019/
18:14:05 <jinli> yes, I will respond to Pauls
18:14:16 <bh526r> #info It's sitting there for almos 2 weeks, no comments
18:14:24 <bh526r> Cool, thank you Jin
18:14:49 <bh526r> #info I suggest we merge it. I already gave +2
18:15:48 <bh526r> If no objection, can Niko or Kamal +2 and merge it?
18:16:10 <kamal___> which one? 388821?
18:16:19 <bh526r> 390019
18:16:31 <bh526r> The Shim Example Code one
18:16:35 <tomhambleton> No objection from me :-)
18:16:56 <bh526r> 388821 had comments from Paul, and -1. Jin will address Paul's comments
18:17:06 <kamal___> ok I will take a look at it today
18:17:15 <bh526r> Thank you Kamal
18:17:55 <bh526r> #info All agreed to merge https://review.openstack.org/#/c/390019/ "Example Shim Server Improvements". Kamal will take a look and take action accordingly.
18:18:43 <NikoHermannsEric> yes
18:18:51 <bh526r> #info Next Patch "WIP: Add unit tests for gluon/objects/base.py"
18:19:00 <bh526r> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/391894/
18:19:57 <bh526r> looks like no one had read it
18:20:01 <tomhambleton> I have looked it over
18:20:48 <bh526r> Great. Any comment?
18:20:49 <tomhambleton> It looks really good.  I plan to call him to discuss it in more detail
18:21:02 <bh526r> Cool.
18:21:24 <bh526r> #info Tom has looked at it, and it looked really good
18:21:37 <jinli> I looked at it also. I can do some simular test case to other packages
18:21:41 <tomhambleton> There is some functionality in the base object that we are not using.  So, some code cleanup could be done.
18:21:46 <bh526r> #info Tom will call the author (Trevor) to discuss it in more detail before moving forward
18:22:35 <bh526r> Sure, Tom. Perhaps let us have a code review session with him in a conference call bridge. Who else wants to be there?
18:22:54 <jinli> I want to be there
18:23:41 <NikoHermannsEric> For "WIP: Add unit tests for gluon/objects/base.py" I will do a longer review tomorrow.
18:23:54 <bh526r> Thank you Niko.
18:24:44 <bh526r> #info Niko will also do a comprehensive review tomorrow
18:25:23 <bh526r> #info Move on to next patch "First draft of port and service binding model for Gluon"
18:25:33 <bh526r> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/392250/
18:26:17 <georgk> this is mainly a trigger for discussion
18:26:34 <bh526r> #info several comments indicated it is "Very crisp and concise document. Good job!"
18:26:35 <georgk> don´t consider this a final solution, but add your thoughts to the patchset
18:26:51 <georgk> let´s different approaches there
18:27:02 <georgk> +discuss
18:27:10 <bh526r> :)
18:28:15 <bh526r> I assume everyone needs some more time to review it, and write comments
18:28:31 <Jeffreyc42> correct - for me atleast :)
18:29:02 <tomhambleton> Let's put this on the agenda for the voice conference next week.
18:29:11 <bh526r> #info Everyone needs some more time to review it abd give comments.
18:29:16 <bh526r> Yup
18:29:40 <georgk> ok, agreed
18:30:11 <bh526r> I think that's all of the new patches
18:30:47 <bh526r> #info Jin will address Paul's comments on 38821 in a new patchset
18:31:36 <bh526r> #info Everyone will take more time for comprehensive review on 391894 and 392250
18:31:52 <bh526r> Good
18:32:14 <bh526r> #topic SFC Model
18:32:31 <bh526r> Niko, now it is SFC
18:32:41 <bh526r> Will you give a brief introduction?
18:32:53 <NikoHermannsEric> Ok
18:33:19 <NikoHermannsEric> Basicly I would just like to start the dicussion about the SFC model in Gluon.
18:33:48 <bh526r> Do you mean the SFC Proton?
18:33:50 <NikoHermannsEric> I think we should come up with a model and discuss it in the community then
18:33:53 <NikoHermannsEric> yes
18:34:03 <bh526r> Good idea, we should
18:34:14 <NikoHermannsEric> I think the best way to do it is to file an rst in the gluon repo
18:34:33 <NikoHermannsEric> in the same patch we would then have a model as well.
18:34:52 <NikoHermannsEric> if that is merged the different shim could be started.
18:35:04 <NikoHermannsEric> anybody has a different view?
18:35:27 <juanmafg> Niko, are you thinking on having an SFC model based on the ietf draft?
18:35:35 <juanmafg> or something different?
18:35:38 <tomhambleton> Sounds like a good plan.
18:36:29 <NikoHermannsEric> we would start with the  IETF SFC data model or the ETSI VNF Forwarding Graph
18:36:30 <NikoHermannsEric> yes
18:36:35 <NikoHermannsEric> juanmafg: yes
18:36:39 <juanmafg> as far as I see there are quite a lot of models, one is suggested by IETF, another by ETSI and another completely different proposed by NEtworking SFC in Openstack
18:36:42 <juanmafg> ok
18:37:24 <juanmafg> it sounds like a good thing
18:37:24 <bh526r> For SFC, there are 2 different technologies: NSH-based (L2) and VPN-based (L3)
18:37:29 <NikoHermannsEric> I think we need to understand them all and then find the right one for gluon
18:37:48 <NikoHermannsEric> networking-sfc are they doing VPN-based?
18:38:00 <NikoHermannsEric> juanmafg: can you give us more info there?
18:38:06 <bh526r> Those are implementation choices. What we really need is the SFC Proton that is agnostic of the underlying implementation
18:38:36 <bh526r> networking-sfc defines APIs, and those APIs are supposed to be agnostic of implementation
18:38:58 <bh526r> But now the implementation of networking-sfc APIs are based on NSH (L2)
18:39:28 <juanmafg> Niko, can you be more specific?
18:39:36 <juanmafg> more info about the different interfaces?
18:40:04 <bh526r> So whatever we propose in SFC Proton, we need to make sure the APIs can be implemented by NSH and VPN
18:40:18 <NikoHermannsEric> yes, that is right
18:40:44 <juanmafg> ok, it sounds like a good idea
18:40:47 <NikoHermannsEric> I think we should not have a decision on that right now. I personaly don't have enough information for that
18:41:59 <bh526r> I have a talk in Austin regarding 2 different technologies in SFC: https://www.openstack.org/videos/video/service-function-chaining-technology-analysis-and-perspective
18:43:23 <bh526r> So Niko, perhaps when you work with Brady, Juan etc. on SFC Proton, just keep in mind the API agnostic of implementation
18:43:49 <NikoHermannsEric> yes, that is the intention
18:44:08 <bh526r> Great
18:44:24 <bh526r> Do you have a draft proposal or just start to brainstorm?
18:44:45 <NikoHermannsEric> I think Juan has
18:45:10 <NikoHermannsEric> but I guess he will need more time for that.
18:45:16 <juanmafg> that's right
18:45:34 <juanmafg> I know all the technologies and the interfaces
18:45:42 <NikoHermannsEric> I think best idea is that we give him a bit of time, filing the rst and then we can comment etc.
18:45:46 <bh526r> Cool. Of course to make it more mature
18:45:53 <juanmafg> but still we have not done any comparisson or proposal for having a common API
18:46:01 <juanmafg> this is just the first approach to Gluon
18:46:42 <bh526r> Cool. So SFC Proton is a good opportunity to have a common API
18:47:30 <NikoHermannsEric> yes I think so as well. The main goal should be to get sfc more aligned
18:47:30 <bh526r> Take your time to think through it, and we look forward to see it
18:47:48 <bh526r> That's right, more aligned
18:48:27 <bh526r> It seems we are good
18:49:18 <bh526r> #info Niko will work with Juan, Brady etc to have a common API of SFC that can be implemented by different technologies, such as NSH-based and VPN-based
18:49:45 <bh526r> #info SFC Proton provides this good opportunity of alignment of SFC
18:50:33 <bh526r> #info It will take some time to think through it. Once the draft is ready, it will be submitted for review
18:50:54 <bh526r> Great, we had good discussion.
18:51:04 <bh526r> Anything else from anyone?
18:51:46 <bh526r> #topic AOB
18:51:55 <bh526r> #info Nothing else
18:52:10 <bh526r> If nothing else, we can adjourn the meeting
18:52:17 <bh526r> #info Meeting adjourned
18:52:36 <bh526r> Thank you everyone, and talk to you next time.
18:52:40 <bh526r> Bye
18:52:45 <NikoHermannsEric> thanks!
18:52:45 <tomhambleton> Bye All!
18:52:45 <Jeffreyc42> bye
18:52:49 <bh526r> #endmeeting