14:56:07 <bryan_att> #startmeeting Copper Weekly Meeting
14:56:07 <collabot> Meeting started Wed Jun 10 14:56:07 2015 UTC.  The chair is bryan_att. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:56:07 <collabot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
14:56:07 <collabot> The meeting name has been set to 'copper_weekly_meeting'
14:56:20 <bryan_att> #topic Roll Call
14:56:30 <bryan_att> #info Bryan Sullivan
14:56:42 <bryan_att> I'll give a few minutes to see who shows up.
14:59:46 <zhipeng> #info Howard Huang
15:00:47 <bryan_att> I put a simple agenda at https://etherpad.opnfv.org/p/copper
15:01:37 <bryan_att> will wait a couple more minutes before starting - feel free to add items to the agenda
15:03:52 <bryan_att> ok, let's go.
15:04:00 <bryan_att> #topic Copper documentation
15:04:24 <bryan_att> #info I've been working to convert the docs to RST
15:04:59 <bryan_att> #info Once they are in the git repository i will send out a note for additional contributions
15:05:27 <bryan_att> #info in the short term you can see the document developing at my site http://bkaj.net/opnfv/copper/html/
15:05:54 <bryan_att> #info this is using the sphinx RST renderer as is being used in the doctor project
15:06:33 <bryan_att> #info I've broken out the docs into use cases, architecture, and requirements sections
15:06:48 <zhipeng> looks great
15:07:32 <bryan_att> #info the goal is to simplify contribution and get input from people already using gerrit etc
15:08:08 <bryan_att> #info for now I can be called upon as a reviewer and I will respond asap - less than 24 hours
15:08:47 <bryan_att> #info I'm also less concerned about minor editorial things and ensuring that group consensus is derived before commit merges
15:09:20 <bryan_att> #info I think the most important thing is that we develop the docs and review them periodically to ensure that they are going in the direction members want
15:10:12 <bryan_att> #info during the development phase there needs to be as low a barrier to contribution as possible - if anyone contributes something that someone else objects to, then an issue can be raised to address it
15:11:06 <bryan_att> #iinfo that's most of the documentation update stuff - I should have the docs in git and the jenkins build setup by the end of this week
15:11:18 <bryan_att> #info that's most of the documentation update stuff - I should have the docs in git and the jenkins build setup by the end of this week
15:11:40 <bryan_att> any other comments to the docs / process?
15:11:59 <zhipeng> nope
15:12:17 <bryan_att> #topic OpenStack summit followup
15:12:43 <bryan_att> #info Next week I will be at ONS, and a subject will be the NB abstraction of configuration intent
15:13:16 <bryan_att> #info there's supposed to be a work item kicking off in ONF related to that, to define a grammar for intent
15:14:26 <bryan_att> #info I want us to begin to crystalize key use cases into a descriptive list of intent items, that we can then match to the existing NB interfaces and data formats (Yang etc) of VIMs
15:14:47 <zhipeng> would ONFKeystone be officially established at ONS?
15:14:52 <bryan_att> #info That's one track of the followup - how do we express intent across VIMs
15:15:18 <bryan_att> #info A second track is how well the use cases match up to the capabilities of Congress and ODL projects
15:15:45 <bryan_att> #info analysis work on ODL projects has not yet started
15:16:12 <zhipeng> #info new intent project Keystone proposed in ONF
15:16:14 <bryan_att> #info Due to the need to get Arno up and running for use case testing of Congress first
15:16:25 <zhipeng> #info should it also be a Copper upstream ?
15:16:42 <bryan_att> #info That's my #1 goal -  a real testable platform to validate use cases
15:17:33 <bryan_att> #info But I encourage any assessment of how configuation intent is propagated to ODL / Contrail / ONOS etc through OpenStack as the orchestrator
15:17:57 <bryan_att> #info I have an adequate handle on Congress, but none on the ODL support
15:18:34 <bryan_att> #info I'll be adding spaces to the docs so that this analysis can be documented as people progress it
15:19:29 <bryan_att> #info The 3rd takeaway is what closed-loop systems can help us implement reactive policy
15:20:27 <bryan_att> #info I want to align this in particular with Doctor, Promise etc - there is a lot in common, e.g. approaches
15:21:02 <bryan_att> #info such as listening to message busses, or subscribing to specific events at publlishers
15:22:09 <bryan_att> #info That leads to possible considerations for refactoring Copper and other projects so that the common aspects are merged in some place/project. Any ideas how we can go about that?
15:22:52 <bryan_att> #info The intent abstraction goal is also a common aspect, like closed-loop support
15:24:09 <zhipeng> what do you mean by closed-loop ?
15:24:52 <bryan_att> #info Closed-loop means there is an event at some place, and a listener at another place gets and event, and takes some action in response
15:25:13 <bryan_att> #info As compared to just handling events at the source
15:26:33 <bryan_att> #info if polices are applied by the entity that established them, e.g. a VIM, which also locally discovered the event that affects policy, that is local enforcement as compared to closed-loop enforceent
15:27:14 <zhipeng> so does this has to be a loop? or a DAG should suffice ?
15:27:16 <bryan_att> #info That's about all I need to say for now re the takeaways - there are three main takeaways, two of which are likely in common with the other projects (intent expression, and closed-loop methods)
15:27:44 <bryan_att> #info the need for a testbed is copper-specific (e.g. layering on of Congress through Ansible)
15:28:18 <iben> bryan_att - I’m lurking here… Wanted to say hello!
15:28:35 <bryan_att> #info and the ability to locally detect configuration policy violations is also Copper-specific
15:28:38 <bryan_att> hi Iben
15:29:00 <bryan_att> #info So in summary for release 2 ...
15:29:16 <bryan_att> #topic Release 2 workplan
15:30:04 <bryan_att> #info What i want to do is start a cross-project dialog on factoring out common aspects of policy-driven projects, so we are investigating these things is disconnected projects
15:30:28 <bryan_att> #info or (are not)
15:31:18 <bryan_att> #info The other main goal now that we have Arno is to develop and validate use cases, in a testbed
15:32:02 <bryan_att> #info That will involve assessment of ODL projects and other OpenStack projects related to config policy
15:32:58 <bryan_att> #info With two main focuses (use case testing and local config enforcement) I think we can make good progress before the liberty deadline and ODL release deadline
15:34:26 <bryan_att> #info so in summary I'm proposing that OPNFV work to collect common project aspects into a new project or centralize them somehow, while ensuring that use cases (e.g. config, fault mgmt, scaling, reservation)  are equally addressed
15:35:07 <zhipeng> #info or other policy related rojects just output the requirements to Copper
15:35:21 <zhipeng> having Copper as the central place
15:35:42 <bryan_att> #info While in Copper we focus back on the use case analysis and local policy enforcement (as a start, expanding to closed-loop once we have assessed how to do this in a common way)
15:36:17 <bryan_att> #info I don't propose that Copper be the common place for aspects in common, but that is certainly an ioption.
15:36:49 <bryan_att> #info What I want is for the community to determine where is the best place to address these aspects, e.g. where is the most momentum
15:37:09 <bryan_att> #info If we can use this as a means to amp up participation in Copper then fine
15:37:17 <zhipeng> ok
15:37:21 <bryan_att> #info But I assume that it's open to discussion
15:38:02 <bryan_att> That's all from me. Any other topics?
15:38:20 <iben> i sent an email about the ONS
15:38:34 <iben> we have a preso and wanted to talk a little about copper
15:38:39 <bryan_att> i'll look for it
15:38:47 <iben> i was hoping to get some content from your
15:38:55 <bryan_att> I'll be on a panel thursday
15:38:56 <iben> current project status and next steps
15:39:05 <bryan_att> my slides are on the wiki
15:39:15 <iben> this will just be a 5 minute outline to the ONS developers
15:39:19 <iben> on Monday
15:39:36 <iben> My 1 hour session is to intor them to 4 topics:
15:39:40 <iben> security
15:39:42 <iben> ipv6
15:39:50 <bryan_att> but I can sync up with you. i will be at the meeting hotel Sunday evening
15:39:53 <iben> testing (functional and performance)
15:40:01 <iben> and finally policy (copper/congress)
15:40:14 <iben> i have to submit the slides tonight
15:40:26 <iben> right now I only have 1 slide on copper
15:40:38 <iben> it’s on the wiki - can I send you a link now?
15:40:43 <bryan_att> sure
15:40:58 <bryan_att> i'll get back asap
15:41:07 <iben> #link to ONS preso on OPNFV
15:41:08 <iben> https://wiki.opnfv.org/start#events
15:41:13 <iben> click events
15:41:24 <iben> find the ONS part
15:41:34 <iben> then click “draft presentation"
15:41:51 <iben> that will download the PPTX file
15:41:57 <bryan_att> OK, will do.
15:42:02 <iben> #link - https://wiki.opnfv.org/_media/ons-opnfv-spirent-preso-ir150609.pptx
15:42:11 <bryan_att> OK, that's all from me.
15:42:12 <iben> you can email me any changes you want and I’ll update it
15:42:16 <iben> thanks Bryan!
15:42:18 <bryan_att> sure
15:42:29 <bryan_att> talk to you later
15:42:32 <bryan_att> #endmeeting