18:31:33 <SridarK> #startmeeting Networking FWaaS
18:31:33 <openstack> Meeting started Wed Jun  3 18:31:33 2015 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes.  The chair is SridarK. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:31:35 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
18:31:37 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'networking_fwaas'
18:32:24 <SridarK> Lets run thru bugs, specs and other important actions
18:32:37 <SridarK> #topic Bugs
18:32:57 <SridarK> We discussed last week:
18:33:03 <SridarK> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1455863
18:33:03 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1455863 in neutron "FWAAS- FW Rule editing puts FW to error state " [Undecided,Confirmed] - Assigned to vikram.choudhary (vikschw)
18:33:29 <vishwanathj> I was able to reproduce the issue as well in Kilo
18:33:37 <badveli> hello all
18:33:40 <SridarK> This could be an issue with Agent communication - i will sync with vikram to help
18:33:42 <slaweq> hello guys
18:33:43 <SridarK> badveli: hi
18:33:49 <SridarK> slaweq: hi
18:33:50 <badveli> hello sridar and all
18:34:00 <SridarK> the other one:
18:34:11 <SridarK> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/horizon/+bug/1454974
18:34:11 <openstack> Launchpad bug 1454974 in OpenStack Dashboard (Horizon) "FWAAS- FW rules table is asymmetric." [Undecided,New] - Assigned to Kahou Lei (kahou82)
18:34:33 <SridarK> dashboard related - vishwanathj: could i request u to take a look and offer any help or suggestions
18:34:58 <vishwanathj> SridarK, I will take a look after this meeting
18:35:05 <SridarK> vishwanathj: thanks
18:35:18 <SridarK> other than these there was nothing new or critical
18:35:29 <SridarK> others pls add if there is something i have missed
18:36:35 <SridarK> ok so we are good - we can move on to specs
18:36:53 <SridarK> #topic Traffic direction Spec
18:37:16 <SridarK> thanks slaweq: & Vikram  for working thru this
18:37:27 <slaweq> I made some changes in specs
18:37:46 <slaweq> is it what we were talking about last week SridarK?
18:37:58 <SridarK> slaweq: yes i am good
18:38:37 <SridarK> slaweq: u had a few other comments - have u addressed all - if not u can clean up and push another patch
18:39:05 <slaweq> I was trying to answer for all and address all in new patchset
18:39:16 <SridarK> slaweq: ok
18:39:23 <slaweq> but maybe I forgot about something
18:40:14 <SridarK> slaweq: ok no worries - u can ping the folks with comments and if they are good u should get a +1 and then u can reach out cores
18:40:22 <SridarK> * to cores
18:40:38 <slaweq> ok, I will try to ask them to review it again
18:40:47 <SridarK> slaweq: sounds good
18:40:58 <SridarK> slaweq: anything else u would like to discuss here
18:41:08 <slaweq> no
18:41:20 <SridarK> slaweq: ok thx for the update
18:41:34 <SridarK> #topic Service Objects/Group
18:41:40 <slaweq> SridarK: np
18:41:49 <SridarK> badveli: were u planning to push up a spec
18:41:58 <SridarK> badveli: i think u can fast track this
18:42:05 <badveli> i already did
18:42:06 <SridarK> since it was approved for Kilo
18:42:17 <SridarK> ok cool - can u pls post the link
18:42:29 <badveli> yes
18:42:50 <SridarK> badveli: sorry i did not realize
18:42:58 <badveli> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/185765/
18:43:14 <badveli> no problem, i followed one of the patch that does
18:43:31 <badveli> repurpose the juno spec to kilo
18:43:55 <badveli> sorry kilo-backlog to liberty
18:44:12 <SridarK> i think u may need another patch here - but good now we have the coordinates to go look
18:44:46 <SridarK> badveli: any issues u want to bring up ?
18:44:51 <SridarK> or discuss
18:45:26 <badveli> nothing much but i think this is the way we repurpose a spec as per one of the patch that was given as the guidelines
18:45:57 <vishwanathj> badveli, I do not see the contents, how are reviewers going to provide their comments?
18:46:31 <SridarK> vishwanathj: yes - hence i requested badveli: that he may need another patch
18:46:33 <badveli> vishwanthj this is only a repurpose the spec that is alreasy approved as per kilo
18:46:54 <badveli> the spec needs to be moved from kilo-backlog to liberty
18:47:15 <badveli> there is already a patch kyle had done to repurpose a spec
18:47:20 <badveli> we only move the spec
18:47:40 <vishwanathj> ok, thanks
18:47:43 <badveli> there is a kilo-backlog that is already there with the spec that needs to be moved
18:48:00 <SridarK> badveli: ok maybe we can sync up offline more on this to make sure we can see the contents ?
18:48:29 <badveli> let me give a link that kyle had done to repurpose a spec if i can find
18:48:33 <badveli> in the meeting
18:48:42 <badveli> otherwise i will send an offline message
18:48:51 <SridarK> badveli: sounds good - lets take if offline
18:48:55 <SridarK> *it
18:49:09 <SridarK> badveli: anything else u want to bring up ?
18:49:19 <badveli> nothing
18:49:28 <SridarK> badveli: ok thanks
18:49:30 <badveli> from my side thanks
18:49:42 <SridarK> #topic Logging Spec
18:49:52 <SridarK> #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132133/
18:50:07 <SridarK> i don't see yushiro here today
18:50:33 <SridarK> this is getting reviews, i had some discussion with yushiro at the summit as well
18:50:46 <SridarK> we can pick this up next time or on gerrit
18:51:07 <SridarK> #topic SG - FWaaS alignment
18:51:25 <SridarK> From the summit - the other important thing is that we should help on the effort to look for alignment with SG.
18:51:38 <SridarK> We should all run thru the use cases and help with the discussion in any way.
18:51:44 <xgerman> +1
18:51:52 <SridarK> there was an email from xgerman:
18:52:02 <SridarK> #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fwaas_use_cases
18:52:08 <xgerman> yep
18:52:29 <SridarK> would request all to take a look and lets get some use cases and help in any way
18:52:29 <xgerman> I am still trying to invite some operators and end users to give us use cases
18:52:49 <SridarK> xgerman: great and pls add anything more u would like to on this topic
18:52:54 <xgerman> people went on vacation right after the summit :-(
18:53:13 <SridarK> xgerman: i suspect most of this month is going to be like that
18:53:19 <xgerman> yeah, once we have the use cases collected we can rethink the API
18:53:49 <SridarK> xgerman: yes absolutely and meanwhile if there are things to look lets also discuss here
18:53:57 <xgerman> yep
18:54:06 <SridarK> we can keep this is a living topic on the mtg
18:54:11 <mickeys> I have a hard time figuring out what to think about the traffic direction spec without any resolution to the FWaaS alignment discussion
18:54:12 <xgerman> sounds good
18:54:26 <SridarK> xgerman: thx
18:54:29 <SridarK> mickeys: hi
18:54:33 <mickeys> hi
18:54:35 <xgerman> mickeys agreed
18:54:53 <SridarK> mickeys: yes this is a bit of tightrope with any spec
18:55:21 <SridarK> mickeys: but the direction from Kyle has been to get specs going and continue the discussion
18:55:42 <SridarK> perhaps we may have a v2 API - yes these things are still TBD
18:55:49 <mickeys> Just noting that some iteration may be required, depending on the progress of FWaaS alignment
18:55:56 <xgerman> +1
18:56:03 <SridarK> but if we have something going - it may be a question of refactor
18:56:15 <SridarK> rather than start the work fresh
18:56:22 <SridarK> but i agree as well
18:56:26 <xgerman> it really depends on the bandwidth and where we want to concentrate our efforts
18:57:06 <SridarK> yes we will record that for all contributors - that there will be some refactor - we should be open to that
18:57:20 <mickeys> If we are able to get any consensus on FWaaS alignment, IBM would like to pitch in
18:57:29 <SridarK> mickeys: +1
18:57:40 <xgerman> +1
18:57:42 <SridarK> that will be good - banix also mentioned this
18:57:44 <jwarendt_> +1
18:58:07 <vishwanathj> in my opinion, until there is a concrete plan spelled out for the fwaas alignment, we should continue to make progress and not wait
18:58:25 <vishwanathj> that's just my opinion
18:58:38 <SridarK> vishwanathj: and we are open to the fact there will be reiteration/refactor
18:59:00 <mickeys> Is the association of ports with firewalls going ahead, or is that tied into the FWaaS alignment discussion?
18:59:02 <xgerman> well, as long as we keep an open mind when going into those features
18:59:03 <vishwanathj> yes, we are open to re-iteration and refactor
18:59:05 <SridarK> but this may be a case by case basis
18:59:42 <SridarK> mickeys: the port association will be really close to SG alignment
18:59:51 <mickeys> OK, good to know
19:00:02 <SridarK> mickeys: unless u are thinking only router ports
19:00:41 <mickeys> I would like router ports or VM ports, so I agree to making it part of the FWaaS alignment discussion
19:00:43 <SridarK> mickeys: in that case will be good to get some thoughts down on the etherpad and get some consensus
19:00:53 <SridarK> mickeys: exactly
19:01:16 <mickeys> I mentioned router ports, VM ports, and groups of each in the etherpad last night
19:01:40 <SridarK> mickeys: great
19:01:53 <SridarK> xgerman: anything else u would like to bring up ?
19:01:56 <xgerman> don’t see them join here https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fwaas_use_cases
19:01:58 <xgerman> mickeys?
19:02:05 <xgerman> on here
19:02:42 <mickeys> I am OK for now. Waiting for the real FWaaS alignment discussion ...
19:02:52 <xgerman> k
19:03:00 <SridarK> ok sounds good
19:03:14 <SridarK> #topic Open Discussion
19:03:29 <vishwanathj> SridarK, who is driving the FWaaS alignment discussion
19:03:31 <vishwanathj> ?
19:03:57 <SridarK> xgerman: has kickstarted it and i think it is open for all of us to join in
19:04:02 <xgerman> yes
19:04:06 <SridarK> and help out
19:04:11 <vishwanathj> good to know, thanks
19:04:15 <xgerman> it’s a team effort
19:04:31 <badveli> fine sridark
19:05:12 <vishwanathj> SridarK, I was wondering if there are any thoughts of making this meeting bi-weekly ......
19:05:23 <SridarK> vishwanathj: yes that makes sense
19:05:40 <SridarK> vishwanathj: there is probab a lot of PTO going around as well now
19:05:41 <vishwanathj> because its summer time and lot of people are going to be out on vacation with kids and stuff
19:06:00 <SridarK> vishwanathj: and we can get some more traction on the alignment discussions too
19:06:11 <SridarK> sounds like a good idea to me
19:06:47 <SridarK> if no one has any objections we can do that - we can always change the frequency back to every week as needed
19:07:06 <xgerman> +1
19:07:26 <jwarendt_> +1
19:07:54 <SridarK> ok great lets do that then
19:08:10 <badveli> fine
19:08:13 <SridarK> folks can always be reached on irc or email if any discussions are needed
19:08:29 <SridarK> anything else anyone wanted to bring up ?
19:08:48 <vishwanathj> xgerman, How do I get involved with the FWaaS alignment discussion? Thanks
19:09:01 <xgerman> I started the ether pad to collect use cases
19:09:12 <xgerman> and we will use this meeting to discuss progress
19:09:25 <SridarK> xgerman: +1
19:09:36 <jwarendt_> Use cases very basic right now; did mickeys cases make the etherpad?
19:09:55 <xgerman> +1
19:10:20 <vishwanathj> ok, thanks.....is there a planned timeline and milestones? I ask that to figure out how this is going to progress
19:10:38 <madhu_ak> +1
19:10:49 <jwarendt_> asap?
19:10:56 <mickeys> jawarendt: I cannot say what I put in the etherpad goes beyond basic either
19:12:02 <xgerman> well, we are still working out the specifics but we are hoping to have everything done in Liberty
19:12:21 <SridarK> ok as a first step lets get some traction on the ether pad, but as xgerman: mentioned earlier we need more operator inputs here as well
19:13:06 <xgerman> +1
19:13:10 <jwarendt_> +1
19:13:17 <madhu_ak> +1
19:14:12 <SridarK> ok great may be we close out on this "aligned moment" on this mtg. :-)
19:14:48 <SridarK> ok folks all have a great rest of the week and we will meet in 2 weeks then.
19:14:58 <xgerman> bye
19:15:01 <jwarendt_> Thanks everyone!
19:15:03 <badveli> thanks and bye
19:15:08 <madhu_ak> bye folks
19:15:17 <slaweq> bye
19:15:17 <SridarK> i will update the wiki etc for frequency
19:15:23 <SridarK> bye all
19:15:32 <SridarK> #endmeeting