#opnfv-meeting: Weekly Technical Discussion

Meeting summary

1. Roll Call (bh526r, 14:04:19)
   1. Bin Hu (bh526r, 14:04:23)
   2. Uli (uli-k, 14:04:46)
   3. https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/INF/Scenario+Consolidation (uli-k, 14:05:17)
   4. Larry Lamers (ljlamers, 14:05:51)
   
   
2. Scenario Consolidation (bh526r, 14:05:55)
   1. See link provided by uli-k above (bh526r, 14:06:16)
   2. Uli indicated that there was discussion in the forum since last week (bh526r, 14:07:10)
   3. 2 different names - generic and specific (bh526r, 14:07:33)
   4. The intention is to merged with generic scenarios (bh526r, 14:08:55)
   5. Generic scenarios are our goal of integration work (bh526r, 14:12:42)
   6. typically generic scenarios should be supported by multiple installers (bh526r, 14:13:23)
   7. Bryan indicated that the expectation is to be supported by all installers (bh526r, 14:15:14)
   8. regardless of the installer being used, we can have the feature (bh526r, 14:15:50)
   9. This is the expectation - generic scenarios should be supported by all installers (bh526r, 14:16:13)
   10. we should keep the number of generic scenarios limited (bh526r, 14:17:44)
   11. Dan Radez suggested and Uli changed the wording to "... generic scenarios supported by all installers ..." (bh526r, 14:19:27)
   12. Bryan said to meet the soft target (bh526r, 14:19:38)
   13. some limitations, such as cannot deploy 2 SDN controllers at the same time (bh526r, 14:21:54)
   14. specific scenarios are to introduce new features (bh526r, 14:22:38)
   15. typically start with one installer (bh526r, 14:22:57)
   16. should provide roadmap from the beginning (bh526r, 14:24:42)
   17. overlap may happen, but should lead to merge (bh526r, 14:25:36)
   18. more resources will be allocated to maintaining generic scenarios. specific scenarios will likely have a shorter support period after release as they are of interest to a smaller user community vs generic scenarios, and we may need to prioritize resources post-release for scenario maint/regression testing (bryan_att, 14:33:26)
   19. specific scenarios may be released at any time, vs generic scenarios that are expected to be released at the overall release schedule (bryan_att, 14:34:12)
   20. HA scenarios typically in release (bh526r, 14:37:22)
   21. NOHA should be available to users (bh526r, 14:37:43)
   22. non-HA as a config option is a better approach, as the expectation continues with the release, that the installers continue to support all config options for generic scenarios, at the least (bryan_att, 14:38:26)
   23. thus non-HA will continue to be supported post-release in any case (bryan_att, 14:38:54)
   24. HA/non-HA should be just a selectable option through the scenario descriptor file which enables the user to select which services are deployed in which node, and in which configuration (HA/non-HA) (bryan_att, 14:42:58)
   25. the resulting assumption is that all scenarios will support HA and non-HA, since they are selectable options in the scenario config file (bryan_att, 14:45:07)
   26. Uli introduced details of current scenarios, and ideas of possible consolidation/merge (bh526r, 14:58:08)
   27. Uli will drive the actions of next steps (bh526r, 15:02:11)
   28. Uli will send a request to community for help of filling up the table and collect more information (bh526r, 15:05:47)
   29. Those information will help possible paths of scenario consolidation (bh526r, 15:06:14)
   30. We will discuss the status of information collection next week (bh526r, 15:06:36)
   31. Meeting adjourned (bh526r, 15:06:42)

Action items

1. (none)

People present (lines said)

1. bh526r (30)
2. bryan_att (6)
3. collabot (3)
4. uli-k (2)
5. dneary (1)
6. ljlamers (1)
7. hongbo333 (1)