14:01:40 #startmeeting network_common_flow_classifier 14:01:41 Meeting started Tue Oct 3 14:01:40 2017 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is davidsha. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:01:42 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 14:01:45 The meeting name has been set to 'network_common_flow_classifier' 14:01:48 Hi everyone 14:01:51 hi davidsha 14:02:14 hello 14:02:35 I'll wait 2 mins for more to join. 14:02:50 what's up bcafarel 14:03:37 having fun with zuulv3 fallout mostly :) 14:04:05 bcafarel: :( 14:04:07 As long as your having fun :P 14:05:09 I guess we should start 14:05:30 #topic CCF v0 - Update 14:05:44 reedip will probably pop in (now that fwaas meeting was moved) 14:06:39 I've most of the proposed changes implemented, just had a few issues with my dev environment that have help me up. 14:06:48 held* 14:07:41 I should have at least the database migrations patch and the models patch up by Friday. 14:08:09 Are there any questions for the patches? 14:08:51 davidsha: when is v0 ready to merge? 14:09:13 davidsha: should existing code be merged as is and then smaller patches submitted to fix the multiple parts towards v1? 14:09:41 igordc: When there is a consensus on it being ready to merge is the simplest answer. 14:09:51 :) 14:10:02 igordc: That could be an issue with database migrations 14:10:46 We don't want 2 or 3 migration contractions and expansions because we pushed it in too early 14:11:28 Butt sooner rather than later is prefered, especially when people need to experiment for PoCs 14:11:36 davidsha: you need the migrations when releasing v1 14:11:43 can't we allow updating the migrations until v1 is there? 14:11:46 davidsha: there is no release for v0... migrations can be adapted 14:12:07 That's true, fair enough. 14:12:54 If there are not massive problems with next next patch will we merge it then and refine it as we progress? 14:13:30 Will Zuul also be an issue? 14:14:00 davidsha: sounds good to me 14:14:40 ok, will we move on? 14:14:43 if there are no major objections, having an "initial v0" in tree will be nice indeed 14:14:54 for zuul, it should be ok ccf-wise 14:14:54 kk 14:15:09 there may be failures, but "generic" ones 14:15:29 hopefully in a few days the dust will have settled a bit 14:15:40 Hopefully! 14:15:55 #topic PTG discussion 14:16:27 I was hoping tmorin would be here for this, cause now I need to speak on his behalf 14:16:31 :P 14:17:05 He forwarded me an etherpad with some of the discussions he had outside of the main track: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-queens-ptg-ccffwaas-raw-notes-tmorin 14:17:42 Have you all seen the live streamed discussions of the Neutron PTG? 14:18:17 * mlavalle lurks in the shadows 14:18:54 Hey 14:19:13 I played them while doing other things, guess I missed the ccf discussion :/ 14:19:20 people are just reviewing this: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-queens-ptg-ccffwaas-raw-notes-tmorin 14:19:29 hi mlavalle 14:19:51 bcafarel: I believe the CCF discussion was on the Tuesday morning video 14:19:54 o/ 14:19:54 * mlavalle waves to igor 14:20:00 sorry for being late 14:20:05 hi reedip_ 14:20:08 give me 2 mins and I'll try to grab it 14:20:12 hi 14:21:03 hi igordc 14:21:14 Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58AyKXHkI-I 14:21:45 yeap, that's the one 14:22:57 So one of the topics tmorin noted in his etherpad was tracking classification/group usage to know if we can delete them. 14:23:01 You can also look at the CCF summary here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-September/122583.html 14:23:50 mlavalle: Thanks! forgot about the mailing list summary. 14:24:52 I'll copy the CCF one into tmorin's etherpad actually 14:25:34 yep that has the gist of the meeting, I remember the fwaas discussion for ccf :) 14:25:48 davidsha: cool I'll fix the spec, the one attached seems to be the flow manager 14:26:21 igordc: your right. 14:27:08 guys brb 14:28:15 kk, just on the etherpad, the first 2 topics, knowing that a classification/group has been consumed and classifications being read/write. Any comments? 14:29:07 On the second one, I believe classifications should be read only otherwise we have the update problem. 14:29:27 davidsha: I tend towards read-only 14:29:56 bcafarel: your thought? 14:30:33 davidsha: sorry, was looking for the merged spec 14:30:43 bcafarel: no problem 14:31:03 bcafarel: this one isn't it: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/333993/ 14:31:03 patch 333993 - neutron-specs - Neutron Common Classification Framework (MERGED) 14:31:29 but leaning towards read-only too, updating one and potentially syncing a firewall, a SFC, ... on it does not look like a good idea 14:31:31 oh... what is this? 14:31:55 patchbot? 14:32:16 davidsha: yeah... oh because bcafarel mentioned it 14:32:22 davidsha: you* 14:33:02 Ok, so read only is the decision. What about tracking classification usage? 14:33:57 In earlier patches I could track when a classification was consumed through RPC, however that was against the idea of keeping this at the service plugin layer. 14:35:02 I guess tracking usage is mandatory if we want to keep the feature consuming services do not need to keep a local copy of the classification 14:35:06 Any suggestions? igordc, bcafarel, mlavalle? 14:35:29 so we can allow deleting CCF resources only if they are not in use 14:35:38 davidsha: I see the tracking useful at least to check if classifcations can be deletd (not being consumed) 14:35:50 davidsha: but if there's an alternative to tracking it's also fine I think 14:36:20 and now patchbot has quit... 14:36:24 igordc: I think the alternative is not allow deletion :P 14:37:01 bcafarel: Ya 14:37:01 davidsha: yes, that is a perfect solution to this problem! KISS, very S 14:37:51 Lol 14:38:17 KISS works for me 14:39:00 mlavalle is throwing his weight behind not being able to delete the classification resource, a decision has been made ;) 14:39:35 mhhh, I'm going to be blamed at some point in time ;-) 14:40:30 Lol, we can do some more path finding for this as the PoCs are being developed. so we can kick this can down the road I guess. 14:41:24 davidsha: yes but the final impl on this aspect should be before v1 14:41:31 There is mention of FWaas drafting a spec for this and BGP VPn doing the same, so I'll need to find those when they go up 14:41:39 igordc: Of course 14:42:13 no progress on the SFC side, was too busy on other fronts 14:42:21 davidsha: so I won't block you! (for now) 14:43:12 bcafarel: same for me, I was working on a qos one, but it's been lost in some obscure branch name now.... 14:44:12 The next thing is horizon, what will we need to do to make a component? 14:45:06 Can we extend Horizon from the Neutron Classifier repo like the openstack client or do we need to submit something to horizon? 14:45:52 davidsha: I think so, but once ccf becomes neutron-stadium or more than the code would be moved to horizon itself 14:46:08 davidsha: which is ccf v2 at least, I expect 14:46:12 sorry, my network has issues with me 14:46:30 igordc: ack, something else to revisit in the future. 14:46:36 reedip_afk: np 14:47:01 yep I don't think keeping it in-house will be a problem short-term 14:47:19 Ok, that sounds like a plan then# 14:47:36 so akihiro was a volunteer to get it done? 14:47:52 amotoki: ^^^^ 14:48:10 I'm not sure, we'd need tmorin to clarify 14:49:54 We're running out of time, I don't think the points from the summary need to be discussed, will we move onto the next topic? 14:50:45 #topic Call for requirements 14:51:37 There hasn't been any response on the mailing list so I won't bring this up again next meeting 14:52:12 I added it because it was mentioned at the PTG. 14:52:38 So we can move onto open discussion if no one has anything to add. 14:53:02 do you mean from the FWaaS team and others? 14:53:54 mlavalle: well just in response to the mailing list, I'd need to talk to tmorin and see was it discussed 14:54:39 ok 14:54:46 davidsha : I think as per our last discussion, the protocols mention in the IP_PROTOCOL would be useful, right ? 14:55:02 In neutron lib right? 14:55:15 yep 14:55:33 There were a few we were not going to pursue I think but generally yes 14:56:42 kk 14:56:47 We're coming up to the end of the hour, I'll switch to open discussion in case people have something they want to bring up 14:56:53 #topic Open discussion 14:57:20 * bcafarel quickly gets the coffee ready 14:57:25 Any topics anyone would like to mention? 14:57:37 I was away from keyboard a while 14:57:40 bcafarel: don't for get to share :P 14:57:41 * igordc forgot post-lunch coffee, will get one now 14:57:58 maybe I'll use this time to clarify my positon on the ccf 14:58:16 I have a few questions 14:58:28 i think horizon support should be done per each *service* project like fwaas, sfc, so I don't think we need ccf-specific support 14:58:53 due to other priorities I won't be driving the CCF anymore - however I will continue to follow its developments and provide input if I can 14:59:10 amotoki: If it's a common resource between each service though? 14:59:33 amotoki: you do need a specific UI for the definition of classifications 14:59:38 igordc: ack 14:59:49 davidsha: afaik this is the first case, so I think we need more discussion 14:59:55 We're out of time, we'll move this to #openstack-neutron 14:59:57 igordc: thanks for all the restart/spec effort 15:00:02 ok 15:00:09 bcafarel: ;) 15:00:16 #endmeeting