19:59:56 #startmeeting Octavia 19:59:57 Meeting started Wed Nov 19 19:59:56 2014 UTC and is due to finish in 60 minutes. The chair is sbalukoff. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:59:58 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 20:00:01 The meeting name has been set to 'octavia' 20:00:03 #topic Roll Call 20:00:05 o/ 20:00:10 o/ 20:00:16 o/ 20:00:18 o/ 20:00:24 oi! 20:00:25 hello! 20:00:28 \\o 20:00:30 o// 20:00:35 o/ 20:00:39 This is our agenda today: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia/Weekly_Meeting_Agenda 20:00:45 #link https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Octavia/Weekly_Meeting_Agenda 20:01:19 #topic Octavia hack-a-thon in December 20:01:29 will be epic! 20:01:33 So, not a whole lot to say about this except that it's the week of Dec. 15 20:01:48 If you have not yet RSVPed yet, please do here: 20:01:51 #link Octavia hack-a-thon in December 20:01:55 Dangit. 20:02:06 #link Octavia hack-a-thon in December 20:02:08 ... 20:02:10 i can't click on that link! 20:02:20 o/ 20:02:23 technical difficulties thre sbalukoff ? 20:02:27 I can 20:02:36 http://Octavia%20hack-a-thon%20in%20December/ 20:02:37 it just doesn't do anything :) 20:02:38 :) 20:02:53 https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/octavia-kilo-meetup 20:03:10 #link https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/octavia-kilo-meetup 20:03:16 Yeah, that. 20:03:24 Ok! Anyone have questions about that at this time? 20:03:42 yes 20:03:46 o/ 20:03:53 Can we setup a video channel of some sort? 20:03:57 Yes. 20:04:06 That is part of the plan, I think. 20:04:19 I'm going to try and book a VC room for us here at Rackspace so the other devs can participate. 20:04:42 +1 even though I'm based in the HP Seattle office, I will be out-of-town for the first two days. Would like to participate as best I can. 20:04:46 i was hoping it was a google hangout that we can join/dc as needed 20:04:47 ok, we should be able to have some hangout going 20:04:50 I've also been whiteboarding with then lately and would love to contribute :) 20:05:31 Yeah, I can definitely keep a hangout going all week, eh. 20:05:38 Perfect! 20:05:41 Any other questions about this? 20:06:05 (I'll be working on a list of tasks to accomplish as the date draws nearer-- probably makes sense to continue what we're already doing, just in high gear, eh.) 20:06:23 valé 20:06:26 Ok, moving on... 20:06:31 #topic Progress reports 20:06:31 I think the most useful thing we could do is spend the first three days whiteboarding >_> 20:06:40 rm_work +1 20:06:45 I will destroy you, rm_work 20:06:52 sbalukoff: I am not kidding tho <_< 20:06:58 let's use the high bandwith event for high bandwith tasks 20:06:59 Oh, really? 20:07:05 destroy me with your amazing whiteboarding :P 20:07:08 Haha 20:07:09 sbalukoff: Careful he's ambidextrous 20:07:16 :) 20:07:19 #undo 20:07:20 Removing item from minutes: 20:07:26 What do you want to see whiteboarded? 20:07:27 yeah we need to whiteboard a lot 20:07:35 A lot of the flows 20:07:39 Seriously I might agree with rm_work here, since we should focus on nitty gritty details we've glossed over 20:07:45 We've been whiteboarding about agent stuff mostly 20:07:46 Got it. 20:07:50 networking frontend is a big one 20:08:02 also backend as well 20:08:06 there are a lot of "oh, right, we need something to deal with that" gotchas that we forget about, unless we trace flows from start to finish 20:08:14 All right. Can y'all start a list of things you'd like to see whiteboarded at the bottom of the RSVP etherpad? 20:08:17 well, we also might want to split the group into multiple whiteboarders 20:08:23 The all mighty controller layer needs to be figured out 20:08:31 Yes 20:08:33 sure 20:08:34 heartbeat 20:08:50 not for 0.5? 20:08:52 I hope to have a WIP out soon 20:08:58 xgerman: i think we need it for 0.5 20:09:05 sure can 20:09:09 it ends up being pretty central to the way the amphorae work 20:09:20 0.5 is just a milestone but we should whiteboard for 1.0 and then figure out how to split it up into 0.5 and 1.0 work 20:09:22 #action Everyone here who wants flows whiteboarded should start a list of the same on RSVP etherpad. 20:09:22 which becomes clear when you whiteboard an amphora's lifecycle 20:10:02 i think we shouldn't try to implement 1.0 right now but we should definitely keep 1.0 in mind in that we make it easy to implement 1.0 20:10:12 Well, yes, and I'd like to see those flows documented in the project much the same way blogan has already started with the amphora lifecycle. :) 20:10:21 But we can do that after whiteboarding them. 20:10:34 I think a lot of things fall into the category of "ok, this isn't THAT much more complex, and it would save us a rewrite later" bucket 20:10:47 yes minimal tech debt please 20:10:48 err, bucket was a bit redundant there 20:10:48 yeah we need a clear concrete path on how even the small details we glossed over are going to be implemented 20:10:52 let's hope so 20:11:01 Ok. 20:11:22 I am not sure there will be a clear line between 0.5 and 1.0 20:11:25 in reality 20:11:28 And here I thought y'all were getting sick of seeing more design documents 20:11:46 *shrug* 20:11:56 well, the whiteboarding is about the conversations that happen around it :P 20:12:07 There's also no reason we can't start this early (again, referencing blogan's work on the amphora life cycle thus far) 20:12:18 sbalukoff: Just yours :) eh! jk 20:12:18 Heh! 20:12:31 anyway, I think we're in agreement, lots of whiteboarding, we can go to your next point I think :) 20:12:35 sbalukoff: yeah the amphora lifecycle needs discussions as well as the newtorking driver interfaec, which probably needs its own design doc 20:12:48 blogan: Agreed. 20:12:51 blogan: put it in the etherpad :) 20:12:59 Yes, please do! 20:13:12 good stuff 20:13:14 Ok! Anything else about the hack-a-thon right now? 20:13:16 ill make a new etherpad for each one 20:13:17 j/k 20:13:27 please link from main etherpad though 20:14:10 #topic Progress reports 20:14:24 blogan! Please update us on the operator-api 20:14:47 its ready for massive amounts of time from everyone to review, though i need to rebase 20:14:59 4500 lines... 20:15:01 did you make those TLS updates? 20:15:04 But a lot of that is tests. 20:15:35 rm_work: yes 20:16:04 Any one talking or am I netsplit? 20:16:10 crc32: we are talking 20:16:11 crc32: i see you 20:16:22 #action blogan to rebase, and then we need people to review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/121233/ 20:17:16 blogan: How about the network driver interface? 20:17:25 I progress in reverse 20:17:40 i just started research on that this week, put up a very early WIP last night, it needs a LOT of feedback from everyone 20:17:45 a2hill: Er... what? 20:17:51 heh, ignore me 20:18:00 been on 'internal' things 20:18:06 aah. 20:18:17 because i don't really know much about nova-networks and there's a lot of unanswered questions about neutron as well, and this all needs to work for everyone 20:18:51 ok, we will check it out. Link? 20:18:57 blogan: Sounds good. Do you have a review link? 20:19:11 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130352/ 20:19:18 Ok, cool. 20:19:24 shit thats' trevors reveiw 20:19:28 :D 20:19:32 +1 20:19:34 PS. Review mine too 20:19:39 Haha 20:19:41 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/135495/ 20:19:47 i was wondering why it got a +1 20:20:45 Ok, on the amphora API: Well, I just got back from vacation, so I've been playing catch-up. However, I should have a final-ish draft of the spec out in the next day or so, then davidlenwell is going to help me code it (read: He'll totally be the one doing 99% of the work on it.) 20:20:48 ;) 20:20:59 lol 20:21:08 :) 20:21:19 Anyway, spec is here: 20:21:21 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126801/ 20:21:52 johnsom: Can you update us on the base-image creation stuff? 20:22:03 Yes. 20:22:07 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132904 20:22:27 It's been out there in WIP for a few weeks and now is out for review. 20:22:33 Nice! 20:22:39 Ok, folks, we need eyes on that! 20:22:43 +1 20:22:46 I would like to discuss some of your comments sbalukoff 20:22:58 #action y'all should review https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132904 20:23:12 I have built and tested Ubuntu, fedora, and centos VMs. 20:23:18 johnsom: Live, or in the gerrit comment system? 20:23:45 There is tox that tests some stuff in the default ubuntu image using libguestfs 20:23:59 Ok, cool. 20:24:11 Live would be cool, but we could do so in the comments system if everyone will chime in. 20:24:40 I was happy to see most of your comments were about parts I borrowed from other projects. grin 20:24:40 Let's actually see if we can get through the rest of the agenda and then hit this topic during open discussion. If we don't have time to talk then, we can continue afterward. 20:24:50 Sounds good 20:25:08 johnsom: Yeah, I suspected there was copy-pasta going on. Because you actually type with good grammar. ;) 20:25:09 is that possible that we wrap up a document which lists all of the review standards there 20:25:59 mwang2: Yes, we can totally do this. We've got a start in the HACKING.rst, but we can formalize other things as well. (like my bias against .md files. ;) ) 20:26:27 .md files borrowed from other Openstack projects... grin 20:26:40 Anyway, please folks, have a look at johnsom's review above, eh! 20:26:47 that will be great 20:26:51 i should take a look at it today sometime 20:26:58 maybe sbalukoff can write some converter :-) 20:27:38 mwang2: Would you like to take an initial stab at writing that review standards doc and/or amending what we've got in HACKING.rst? 20:28:10 xgerman: Heh! Well, for the .md files in johnsom's review, the converter would be "cp" 20:28:17 Or 'mv' 20:28:30 or rm 20:28:34 XD 20:28:40 I like rm 20:28:44 +1 20:28:53 Yeah, one-line doc files aren't all that useful, in most cases. 20:28:56 * bedis propose a match rm -f 20:29:26 Anyway, mwang2: Do you mind if I assign that review standards doc to you? I'd be happy to work with you on it. 20:30:01 (Did she disappear?) 20:30:24 Ok, let's keep going... 20:30:25 action it, she can't decline it then! 20:30:26 ok 20:30:30 Haha! 20:30:46 #action mwang2 to take initial stab at review standards doc. sbalukoff to work with her on this. 20:30:49 mwang2: if there are standards you are unsure of just list thsoe out as well 20:30:58 ok 20:31:08 rm_work: Can you give us an update on the TLS security stuff you've been working on? 20:31:35 sbalukoff: most of the initial stuff has been checked in, fixing up the Barbican impl right now 20:31:47 Great! 20:31:49 but still need more eyes on the main TLS architecture spec 20:31:55 Cool. Link? 20:31:58 specifically, eyes that have security experience 20:32:10 err 20:32:15 weeeeelll it might have merged 20:32:22 Yeah, I totally merged it. 20:32:26 I'm pretty sure. 20:32:29 yep :P 20:32:31 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130659/ 20:32:38 well, we can always patch it 20:32:41 What kind of feedback are you looking for? 20:32:46 Yes we can. 20:32:48 Just making sure I didn't miss anything 20:32:52 we're talking about security here 20:33:13 bash had holes for years... so 20:33:14 and this is detailing the workflow for TLS end-to-end for amphorae lifecycle and customer TLS data 20:33:15 Well, you almost certainly missed something. Otherwise it wouldn't be security, eh. ;) But I get your point. 20:33:22 im pretty sure we'll have everything secure on the first go round 20:33:33 yeah, definitely. 100% unbreakable 20:33:46 we should announce that on twitter 20:33:52 famous last words 20:33:57 Haha 20:34:04 that will get us some free pen tests 20:34:09 exactly 20:34:12 Ok, so anyone with security chops people on their team should point them at that spec. 20:34:32 sbalukoff: get dustin and deva to look at it 20:34:45 #action Octavia team members with access to security people should have them look at: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130659/ 20:34:53 davidlenwell: I will. 20:35:28 Ok! amiller and / or TrevorV: update on the compute driver interface? 20:35:42 I've got a few reviews up and waiting for some vision on them 20:35:49 Great! 20:35:53 Please hit us with the links. 20:35:53 it'd be almost done if would catch everything on the first pass 20:35:58 I got some great feedback from sbalukoff and blogan just yesterday and am currently making changes to one of them 20:35:58 if i 20:36:09 I'm actually about to push a change 20:36:11 "great feedback" eh 20:36:12 Let me link them really quick 20:36:16 Haha! 20:36:27 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130352 20:36:34 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130640 20:36:42 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/133108 20:36:52 As far as I am aware, my part of the spec is done. TrevorV and I have had discussions about what should be defined where, and we think we have that worked out. 20:36:53 Conveniently they are dependency chained together 20:37:02 +1 ajmiller 20:37:16 Excellent, eh! 20:37:25 #action eyes on the above review links 20:37:42 Let's see... 20:37:46 does anyone think that OCtavia will need to get amphorae by name? 20:38:03 if you do, then go comment on the review 20:38:06 *crickets* 20:38:13 it is a convenient way for a user to query for it 20:38:21 uuid is hard to remember 20:38:27 a2hill: But... will a user ever actually being querying for it? 20:38:28 a2hill they user isn't ever going to know about an "amphora" though 20:38:35 the** 20:38:42 hostnames are going to be auto-generated too, eh. 20:38:54 Right, I *hope* the user has no concept of amphora 20:38:58 Yep. 20:39:06 Only the operator can see behind the curtain. 20:39:12 (Or at least, that's how it should be.) 20:39:14 well, there is always the operator side of it 20:39:19 i suppose not, that was cleared up 20:39:36 bait car! 20:39:50 xgerman the operator wouldn't have need of a name either, since everything should be known by the operator, right? 20:39:51 xgerman: blogan's point was that we'll always know the UUID whenever we know the name. 20:40:03 TrevorV: That was my thought too. 20:40:13 I hope the operator would have full insight ha ha 20:40:23 you would hope... 20:40:24 Anyway, if you think we'll need to look up by name, please read through and comment on the review! 20:40:32 Ok! 20:40:38 So, controller update! 20:40:46 We don't want to name our amphora because we don't want to get too attached to them.... grin 20:40:51 johnsom: Are you working on this already (blueprint is assigned to you) 20:40:56 Yes 20:41:04 Ok, cool, can you give us an update? 20:41:04 queue rm_work's "they're cattle" 20:41:19 technically dougwig coined that 20:41:26 lol 20:41:27 I have started working on it, but stopped to address the burning need with the base-image. I am back on it now 20:41:29 amphorae are so cattle. 20:41:37 rm_work: technically there were many sessions on it at the summit 20:41:39 Hope to have some WIP stuff posted soon 20:41:45 johnsom: Excellent! 20:41:46 ah 20:41:54 Yea, a few were actually titled that 20:42:08 johnsom: is there a spec out or is that what you're working on? 20:42:14 johnsom: you are working on "the controller"? 20:42:35 I am working on "the controller spec" 20:42:40 we were doing a lot of controller-related whiteboarding here yesterday, and it's looking like whatever we are calling "the controller" is really just a collection of agents 20:42:40 excellent 20:42:58 Yes, which aligns with my thinking too 20:43:12 this is the #1 thing we'll need to whiteboard I think 20:43:18 agreed 20:43:20 Agreed 20:43:21 #1a 20:43:24 I wouldn't expect that spec to be finalized before the meetup 20:43:31 #1b is networking 20:43:37 well, I think most of the other stuff on the list falls out of the controller discussion 20:43:38 Heh! 20:43:40 Hahaha, funny man. I expect a lot of discussion 20:43:45 yeah, if you guys have whiteboards I am wondering if you cna take pictures and forward 20:44:07 the HP offices have LOTS of whiteboards, right? 20:44:13 Ok, so: johnsom, it would be great if you could commit a WIP review as soon as you're able, with the understanding it'll probably take several weeks and at least one good whiteboarding session at the hack-a-thon to finalize it. 20:44:19 We will need approximale 1000 sqft of whiteboard 20:44:23 *approximately 20:44:28 we have ways to erase whiteboards 20:44:33 Yes, that is the plan 20:44:44 we will also need some boxing gloves 20:44:48 Sweet. 20:44:53 xgerman: erase whiteboards? blasphemy 20:45:07 Haha 20:45:09 Ok! 20:45:11 moving on... 20:45:14 #topic Other reviews Needing Attention ( https://review.openstack.org/#/q/stackforge/octavia+status:open,n,z ) 20:45:31 Does anyone else here want to point out a review that's not yet been mentioned that needs eyes? 20:45:34 the Barbican impl is up now 20:45:37 spare amphora lifecycle management 20:45:40 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/130424/ 20:45:47 don't think that actually got a call out to reveiw 20:45:50 #link https://review.openstack.org/#/c/132580/ 20:46:00 just fixed the merge conflict, should be good now 20:46:04 Nice! 20:46:30 It's great to see all the progress on this, y'all! 20:46:43 Feel like we've got good momentum going, so let's keep at it, eh! 20:47:05 Any other reviews needing attention? 20:47:59 #topic Open Discussion 20:48:20 johnsom: Ok, let's talk about the base-image review 20:49:04 Cool. So, your comment about dropping the RedHat tribe... Fedora and CentOS where in the spec and we get most of that free from upstream. 20:49:22 Ok, that's fine. Do we have a way to test the code via CI? 20:49:23 I would like to keep them as options, but make it clear they are experimental. 20:49:50 Yeah, we could enable the tox to also build and look at those if we feel the need 20:49:56 I'm OK with that, I suppose, though I'd be happier if they weren't experimental (and testable via CI). 20:50:02 Right. 20:50:23 well, I would assume rohara would have enough interest in those OS 20:50:33 I honestly don't expect many people to use an amphora image other than the one that is under primary support. 20:50:40 Unless they happen to work for RedHat or something. XD 20:50:42 I can add them to the tox if you would like. It will just make it take three times as long 20:51:01 Or we can do that later... 20:51:08 I am for later 20:51:15 Let's worry about it later. 20:51:24 Excellent answer 20:51:25 grin 20:51:58 * rm_work kicks the rock down the road a bit 20:51:59 Next up, the init scripts. I put them in to have something that supports reboots, etc. 20:52:30 I expected that when the code lands that manages all of those haproxy instances would update/remove 20:52:32 Right, let's not do them for now. The scripts davidlenwell and I will be writing will control the haproxy instances, including after reboot. 20:52:56 Let's not even put the init scripts in there right now. They're not going to be useful at all. :/ 20:53:04 agreed 20:53:09 Ok, so, remove them from the commit or disable? 20:53:21 Remove them. 20:53:34 +1 20:53:57 Ok. The upstart I wrote has respawn working for haproxy. You might want to borrow that for your scripts, etc. 20:54:18 Thanks for the heads up! 20:54:56 Anything else you'd like to discuss about this review live? 20:55:02 README.md these came from another project. Nuke 'em, or do you really want me to convert those? I pulled them forward because they seemed to still apply 20:55:26 So, if we're going to have document files at all, I want them to be .rst. 20:55:30 Same thing with the nonlocal_bind, that came from the upstream tripleo haproxy configs. 20:55:36 And if the documentation in there is still useful, let's convert them. 20:55:49 But they are only 1 line (of poorly written English) 20:55:56 So I'm not sure they're actually useful. 20:55:59 did we ever vote on rst vs. md 20:56:02 ? 20:56:06 Agreed, they do not have good grammar 20:56:25 that was your grammar don't lie 20:56:34 xgerman: I'd rather just use one standard, and everything else with more complication is using .rst in this project. 20:56:39 So, let's just keep going with .rst 20:56:44 Haha, go look at that sahara project files.... grin 20:56:48 I don't see a compelling reason to support .md 20:56:48 lol 20:57:05 well, I don't liek converting for the sake of converting 20:57:30 Yeah, it seems like every project has a mix in OpenStack land 20:57:31 Sure, but we're talking about 3 1-line files which will probably be removed anyway. 20:57:42 Let's not do that. XD 20:58:14 we need to make an Openstack Document Format Working Group 20:58:22 +1 20:58:39 blogan: I'm willing to bet there already is one, probably in the docs project, but I'll bet they get ignored a lot. 20:58:50 we can state a strong preference but I don't want to force people borrowing stuff to convert every change the donating project does 20:58:59 (Especially if in some projects "the code is the documentation" is the prevailing attitude.) 20:59:13 xgerman: I'm OK with that. 20:59:25 But realize I'm probably going to complain whenever I see a .md file. 20:59:30 :) 20:59:36 Ok! 20 seconds left! 20:59:55 #endmeeting