16:01:16 #startmeeting interopwg 16:01:16 Meeting started Wed Aug 2 16:01:16 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is eglute. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:17 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 16:01:20 The meeting name has been set to 'interopwg' 16:01:30 Hello Everyone! 16:01:34 #topic agenda 16:01:38 hi! 16:01:41 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropVertigo.10 16:01:47 #chair hogepodge 16:01:48 Current chairs: eglute hogepodge 16:01:58 o/ 16:02:00 #chair markvoelker 16:02:00 Current chairs: eglute hogepodge markvoelker 16:02:11 o/ 16:02:37 Anyone else here for interop wg meeting? 16:02:49 please update agenda as needed: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropVertigo.10 16:03:04 o/ 16:03:16 o/ 16:04:04 #topic PTG 16:04:30 reminder, we will be at PTG, please add your name to the etherpad if you are planning on attending: #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropDenver2017PTG 16:04:38 also please add suggested topics 16:05:22 #topic 2017.08 Guideline 16:05:31 eglute: I assume Interop-wg and Refstack will share the same room as we did last time? 16:05:38 catherineD correct! 16:05:51 at least, i think that's what i requested 16:06:12 great so we will use the same etherpad https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropDenver2017PTG 16:06:24 sounds good! 16:06:32 yes, on the schedule we are together 16:06:34 also do we know the head count so far? 16:07:06 no, that's why I am asking people to add themselves to the list 16:07:10 the etherpad has 4 names so far 16:07:13 https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/InteropDenver2017PTG 16:07:21 right, i hope there will be more :) 16:07:26 Six now :-D 16:07:47 ic thx :-) 16:07:47 catherineD are you going to attend? 16:08:28 eglute: yea waiting for travek approval 16:08:43 hope you get it catherineD 16:08:50 just update the ehterpad 16:09:01 thanks catherineD 16:09:11 eglute: thank YOU! 16:09:26 hogepodge do you have edit access to this? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xmOdT6uZ5XqViActr5sBOaz_mEgjKSCY7NEWcAEcT-A/edit#gid=397241312 16:09:39 or anyone? need to add ehterpad link 16:10:06 o/ 16:10:46 eglute nope 16:11:05 strange that everyone appears as anonymous even that I am login at gmail 16:11:29 eglute: nope for me too on https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xmOdT6uZ5XqViActr5sBOaz_mEgjKSCY7NEWcAEcT-A/edit#gid=397241312 16:11:48 catherineD same here! i dont understand how that works. 16:12:18 ok, i will find someone with access later to get that updated 16:12:23 anything else on PTG? 16:12:35 kendall nelson can update it eglute 16:12:50 catherineD please ask RefStack people to use the etherpad :) 16:12:51 mrhillsman: I think so 16:13:02 mrhillsman thanks, i will email her after the meeting! 16:13:05 catherineD: will do 16:13:07 very welcome 16:13:20 anything else on PTG? 16:13:38 #topic 2017.08 Guideline 16:14:05 so i think we still need to add all the aliases to this guideline, i have not had a chance to look 16:14:23 any volunteers to review the differences between next.json and 2017.08? 16:14:47 I can do it alongside other work I have on this today 16:14:57 Luz had a patch in last week to reconcile some of those 16:15:22 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485438/ 16:15:23 thanks hogepodge 16:15:48 oh thats right. I think we just need to confirm that none slipped 16:15:51 thanks to LuzC for doing the work! 16:16:03 anything else on 2017.08? 16:17:13 eglute: do we have a timeslot at the BoD meeting in Denver? 16:17:14 have to run but will catch up on the logs 16:17:29 markvoelker not yet, but i will ask for it 16:17:36 thanks 16:17:38 also there is a meeting this month as well 16:17:51 so i will ask the board to approve the 2017.08 guideline 16:18:02 ++ 16:18:13 next in 2.0 format? 16:18:25 hogepodge: no 16:18:40 hogepodge i think it needs to be converted... 16:18:54 I think we'd agreed before that 2017.08 would be in 1.x but we should shift next.json over to 2.0. 16:19:07 please do not add any json with 2.0 format until https://review.openstack.org/#/c/484625/ is merged at RefStack 16:19:09 ah, ok 16:20:53 anything else on the 2017.08? 16:22:00 #topic Add get catalog capability as advisory 16:22:09 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/485415/ 16:22:16 please review, everyone 16:23:21 #topic Schema 2.0 16:23:46 thanks to luzC and mguiney for making that possible! 16:23:47 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/430556/ was merged 16:23:48 thank you hogepodge for working on it!!! 16:23:54 yes, thank you all! 16:23:58 haha things for finishing it off eglute 16:24:10 yeah, i had the hardest part ;) :D 16:24:46 anyways, next! 16:24:52 #topic Extension programs 16:24:58 hogepodge i think thats you correct 16:25:17 yes 16:25:29 I have links to the documents that designate and heat provided 16:26:07 #link Designate https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/DNS-InterOp-Capabilities 16:26:19 #link Heat https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pSLeUm2rc8tjGQiMMAloGgOl_U1LHrxgsyJbbC2YEJA/edit 16:26:57 These are the two that I want to get up for advisory before the next meeting. Time is short, but my goal is to get them up for review in before end of day tomorrow 16:27:11 To present to the board as advisory. 16:27:20 hogepodge next meeting this month or in september 16:27:51 August board meeting, along with 2017.08 guideline. Although I suppose we could ask for more runway and do September 16:27:57 will these be in schema 2.0? 16:28:05 Yes 16:28:08 awesome 16:28:19 They have to be, since 1.x doesn't have the necessary mechanics 16:28:30 hogepodge i think this month is doable. 16:28:38 if you submit the patches :) 16:28:57 in the links provided, anything controversial in your opinion? 16:29:10 haha yes, I have been unreliable in my time estimates. No excuses on a big push today though. ;-) 16:29:21 Do you happen to recall off the top of your head what resources are covered in heat_integrationtests.scenario.test_base_resources.BasicResourcesTest.test_base_resources_integration? If not I'll go look, that just seems the mostly likely spot for conversation to occur. 16:29:51 I don't 16:29:52 do we have the heat patch on the gerrit ? 16:30:29 looks like just google at the moment, zhipeng 16:31:00 when the reviews are up I'll notify the dev and interop mailing lists 16:31:03 Ok, I'll go pick at it then. Just want to see what we're testing there and how it compares to what we're testing in Powered. 16:31:30 yes. It's a scenario test too, so we will want to think about if it should be admitted 16:33:03 that's all I have at the moment 16:33:35 thanks hogepodge 16:33:52 so do you think you will have these in a gerrit today/tomorrow? 16:35:06 * eglute wishes she could see people type 16:35:47 #action hogepodge to put DNS and heat extensions into gerrit patches 16:35:55 yes 16:36:19 hogepodge could you please send out email to mailing list(s) once they are in patches? would like broader community review 16:36:29 yes 16:36:41 thank you hogepodge 16:37:29 #topic Vertical Programs 16:37:41 any updates on these? or postpone to PTG? 16:38:35 Not much to update here as we've deferred most of this to PTG. I'll come to Denver with a list of some potential capabilities, but I expect this is one where we'll need to start pretty small and gradually build up. "NFV" is just a really big surface area.=) 16:41:47 sorry, my internet went on a brake 16:42:29 anyways, i need to update the draft completely, i will work with catherineD and hogepodge and markvoelker on it. 16:42:58 eglute: that is a also a good discussion for the PTG 16:43:02 catherineD just to be clear, we are asking taht people submit subunit results to refstack, correct? 16:43:12 yes 16:43:30 mguiney has a review up for it 16:43:32 eglute: I think you were thinking about a complete set of API test? 16:43:34 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/480298/ 16:44:12 thank you hogepodge and mguiney 16:44:15 I can understand wanting more test data, but it's difficult to define "complete" outside of what is required by interop wg 16:44:16 Since the initial decsion to upload only passing data is made by the DefCore team 16:44:42 It would be nice to have Interop-WG's stand for the revise decision 16:44:54 so looking at the refstack patch, subunit results will be optional? 16:44:57 RefStack will take care of the technical stuff 16:45:09 yea 16:45:16 we can start with optional and have a date when it will become mandatory 16:45:25 eglute: +1 16:45:30 but the fact that this will be the first time ever RefStrack provide such feature 16:46:04 eglute: hogepodge: whatever the decision just need a position statement from the Interop-WG 16:46:06 optional would solve a big problem that I have with helping out vendors who need me to look at underlying test issues 16:46:23 eglute: I can work with you to redraft your statement 16:46:31 catherineD thanks, i am ok with interop wg saying that they will be mandatory starting at some date and optional as soon as refstack implements 16:46:36 hogepodge thank you 16:46:37 since the initial decision was as requested by the DefCore 16:46:43 tam 16:46:45 catherineD also sent some comments too 16:47:06 eglute: Thank you! 16:47:18 what do others think on making subunit results optional/mandatory? 16:47:58 Mandatory is hard, but I'm a little afraid optional means we just won't get any results. 16:48:21 optional is fine. Manadtory would need board approval and our submitting to board 16:48:34 I'm not opposed to optional, but I think we need some clear guidance...e.g. instructions on how to configure it, maybe even a warning if you run it configured for a subset? 16:48:49 I don't think it's hard. I think it's necessary. We already have the data, it can be securely transmitted and stored, and it removes the major avenue for potential cheating. 16:48:53 carrot for optional could be help from hogepodge 16:48:55 The main concern is about privacy of the data 16:49:07 no subunit, really hard to help, plus lower priority 16:49:19 that's a false concern, we've gone to great lengths to debunk that 16:49:47 that is the main reason DefCore based on to make the decision at the time 16:49:55 transmitted over ssl, on database controlled by infra with appropriate NDAs, tempest subunit does not leak sensitive information 16:50:02 it could be change now .. but it needs to be documented 16:51:11 privacy in the aspect of involuntary or unknowly reveal of privacy data ... 16:51:15 ok, so to start with, we will have it optional for now, and will try to address any concerns as they arise 16:51:48 since data would be available only to foundation, hopefully thats not too big of an issue 16:52:31 I can write up a patch if it satisfies a desire for documentation, but this is a conversation we keep having in the meetings. 16:52:40 I'll formalize it. 16:52:48 hogepodge: ++++ 16:52:50 thank you hogepodge 16:53:20 hogepodge: I saw a speaker section at ths summit for the topic ... did you submit that? 16:53:24 #action hogepodge write up a documentation patch for optional subunit results 16:54:16 https://www.openstack.org/summit/sydney-2017/vote-for-speakers#/19389 16:54:47 catherineD interesting, wonder why no speaker info 16:55:32 catherineD i would have assumed it was either you or hogepodge 16:55:34 maybe because it is an upstream session? 16:56:08 not me ... However, I think it would be a good discussion 16:56:36 yeah. maybe markvoelker ? 16:56:44 I think that's mguiney 16:56:49 not me 16:57:00 heh, thanks mguiney 16:57:12 ah. that would be good. 16:57:16 good topic, glad it is someone from this group 16:57:17 yea thanks 16:57:46 I voted for it .. 16:58:01 anything else regarding subunit results? 16:58:11 almost out of time too 16:58:41 if not, thanks everyone! 16:59:13 if there is something we haven't covered, ping me on interop channel 16:59:17 #endmeeting