15:27:35 <anipbu> #startmeeting beryllium release review 15:27:35 <odl_meetbot> Meeting started Mon Feb 15 15:27:35 2016 UTC. The chair is anipbu. Information about MeetBot at http://ci.openstack.org/meetbot.html. 15:27:35 <odl_meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:27:35 <odl_meetbot> The meeting name has been set to 'beryllium_release_review' 15:27:42 <anipbu> #topic roll call 15:27:56 <anipbu> #info anipbu 15:28:50 <ebrjohn> #info ebrjohn Brady Johnson, SFC PTL 15:29:05 <colindixon> #info colindixon for TTP, docs, and TSC 15:29:08 <anipbu> #info PTL and TSC members please #info in 15:29:12 <alagalah> #info alagalah for GBP 15:29:32 <adetalhouet> #info adetalhouet Reservation 15:30:18 <anipbu> #chair colindixon LuisGomez phrobb 15:30:18 <odl_meetbot> Current chairs: LuisGomez anipbu colindixon phrobb 15:30:32 <anipbu> Good Morning everybody 15:30:35 <anipbu> Okay Let's get started 15:30:45 <ebrjohn> FYI I have to leave at the top of the hour, I hope I can do my review before then 15:30:57 <ebrjohn> BTW: Good Morning 15:31:10 <anipbu> #topic RESERVATION 15:31:46 <anipbu> adetalhouet: mlemay: do you have release notes and review templates filled out? 15:32:12 <adetalhouet> anipbu, I'm representing Reservation 15:32:19 <adetalhouet> anipbu: I don't think we do have those 15:32:37 <anipbu> Okay, please fill them out 15:32:38 <colindixon> ebrjohn: want this slot 15:32:46 <ebrjohn> I can take the next slot, thanks 15:32:53 <anipbu> okay 15:32:56 <adetalhouet> no, we actually weren't able to come up with them filled out for now 15:32:56 <anipbu> #topic SFC (Service Function Chaining) 15:33:10 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Service_Function_Chaining:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 15:33:30 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Service_Function_Chaining:Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 15:33:34 <colindixon> #action adetalhouet to fill out release notes and release review and find another time to do a releaes review for reservation: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Sample_Release_Review https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Sample_Release_Notes 15:33:34 <ebrjohn> hello 15:33:38 <anipbu> #info Brady Johnson will be representing SFC 15:33:44 <ebrjohn> yes 15:33:48 <anipbu> ebrjohn: anything you would like to add? 15:33:57 * colindixon starts reading 15:33:59 <ebrjohn> Yes, I just wanted to point out a few details about SFC Beryllium. 15:34:00 <anipbu> ebrjohn: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 15:34:08 <KLuehrs> #info KLuehrs (UNI Manager project) 15:34:10 <ebrjohn> Berylium was an important release for SFC because we integrated ODL SFC into OPNFV SFC. 15:34:19 <ebrjohn> In doing so, we also implemented Application Coexistence together with GBP and OVSDB NetVirt. 15:34:32 <ebrjohn> 1) We have tested with all the RC releases except RC3, and we have found no blocking issues. 15:34:39 <ebrjohn> 2) No experimental features 15:34:49 <ebrjohn> 3) User facing features: odl-sfc-model, odl-sfc-provider, odl-sfc-provider-rest 15:35:10 <colindixon> ebrjohn: thanks for the extensive compatibility and migration sections 15:35:23 <colindixon> #info colindixon thanks ebrjohn for the extensive compatibility and migration sections 15:35:25 <ebrjohn> colindixon: hope its helpfull 15:36:03 <colindixon> ebrjohn: system tests? are they manual? automated? non-existent? 15:36:22 <ebrjohn> automated system tests 15:36:37 <ebrjohn> #link https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/sfc/ 15:36:41 <colindixon> ebrjohn: are odl-sfc-model and odl-sfc-provider really user-facing? 15:36:57 <ebrjohn> I guess it depends on the exact definition of user-facing 15:36:57 <colindixon> would somebody actually install those instead of installing the odl-sfc-provider-rest? 15:37:19 <colindixon> ebrjohn: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Simultaneous_Release:Beryllium_Release_Plan#Features 15:37:33 <alagalah> colindixon: May I help answer ? 15:37:41 <colindixon> alagalah: by all means 15:37:49 <anipbu> alagalah: feel free to chime in 15:38:14 <anipbu> #info sfc tested RC artifacts. THere are no blockers 15:38:15 <colindixon> I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong, just trying to get the information which will go in the getting started guide in a way that's most useful for our users 15:38:35 <anipbu> #info sfc has no experimental features 15:38:39 <alagalah> colindixon: Historically SFC has enabled all features at runtime. Whether this is good, bad or indifferent, the key point is that during this release the features were refactored to be far cleaner layered. ... I believe it is a few of the committers desire in Boron that we follow the pattern of most other project 15:38:45 <colindixon> #action ebrjohn to add links to the auotmated system test to the release notes 15:38:47 <anipbu> #info SFC User facing features: odl-sfc-model, odl-sfc-provider, odl-sfc-provider-rest 15:39:20 <alagalah> colindixon: anipbu In essence the top layered features are 15:39:29 <shague_> #info shague OVSDB NetVirt 15:39:43 <colindixon> #info ebrjohn notest aht there is automated system testing for SFC 15:39:53 <colindixon> #undo 15:39:54 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x1ecd4d0> 15:40:06 <colindixon> #info ebrjohn notes that there is automated system testing for SFC 15:40:19 <alagalah> odl-sfc-vnfm-tacker odl-sfc-ui odl-sfc-sb-rest odl-sfclisp odl-sfcofl2 odl-sfc-scf-openflow 15:40:39 <alagalah> odl-sfc-netconf 15:40:51 <alagalah> Things like -model and -provider are consumed by the above list 15:41:08 <alagalah> There are things like -test and -bootstrap that I don't believe are meant for human consumption :-P 15:41:12 <colindixon> #action alagalah ebrjohn anipbu and colindixon to discuss offline what the right user-facing features for SFC are and descriptions that will be useful for users to understand 15:41:15 <alagalah> ebrjohn: Fair summary mate ? 15:41:30 <ebrjohn> alagalah: yes, thanks Keith 15:41:36 <colindixon> alagalah: thank you, I think that makes sense, does my action make sense? 15:42:02 <ebrjohn> colindixon: makes sense to me, sorry for not having that together 15:42:10 <colindixon> it should be fast, just a short sentence for each feature that we think a user needs to understand so that they know when they'd want to install it 15:42:10 <anipbu> SFC has system tests described here: https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/sfc/job/sfc-csit-3node-clustering-all-beryllium/ 15:42:13 <colindixon> ebrjohn: not your fault 15:42:15 <alagalah> ebrjohn: Historically a difficult one to answer :) 15:42:35 <colindixon> anipbu: I'm good, I think we covered what LuisGomez and jamoluhrsen would have covered 15:42:38 <colindixon> so I think we we can move on 15:42:44 <anipbu> sfc looks good to me 15:42:46 <anipbu> Let's move on 15:42:49 <anipbu> congrats sfc 15:43:03 <anipbu> #topic RESERVATION 15:43:09 <ebrjohn> Thanks!! 15:43:16 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Reservation:Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 15:43:27 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Reservation:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 15:43:47 <anipbu> #info adetalhouet is representing RESERVATION 15:44:02 <anipbu> adetalhouet: anything you would like to add 15:44:19 * colindixon reads 15:44:21 <anipbu> 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 15:44:44 <adetalhouet> Not much, we weren't able to provide all the functionality we wanted at the beginning of the release due to lack of resources 15:44:48 <colindixon> adetalhouet: sorry for being abrupt earlier, just trying to keep things moving 15:44:58 <anipbu> from talking to mlemay all reservation features are experimental, correct? 15:45:02 <anipbu> can you confirm? 15:45:12 <colindixon> adetalhouet: "Provides TL1 Southbound Protocol." isn't a knonw issue or limitation, is it? 15:45:23 <adetalhouet> There is actually no real feature to install now, so it wasn't tested against RC3 15:45:26 <colindixon> adetalhouet: was this in the Lithium release? 15:45:46 <colindixon> adetalhouet: should this project be removed from Beryllium? 15:45:50 <anipbu> #action adetalhouet to add link to release notes from the release review 15:45:50 <adetalhouet> colindixon: Provides TL1 Southbound Protocol. is what Reservation offers 15:46:14 <adetalhouet> colindixon: make sense to me, because it doesn't actually add value 15:46:17 <colindixon> adetalhouet: we have to do a respin of RC3 anyway, we could just remove it if that makes more sense, but if you want it to stay in I can understand 15:46:22 <colindixon> mlemay: are you there? 15:46:29 <adetalhouet> mlemay: isn't around 15:46:32 <colindixon> adetalhouet: OK 15:46:36 <colindixon> do you know if he'd be OK with that 15:46:43 <adetalhouet> colindixon: yes he is 15:46:43 <colindixon> I don't want to put you or him on the spot 15:46:46 <colindixon> ok 15:47:11 <adetalhouet> colindixon: the thing is, Reservation provides the TL1 stuff, but we still need to build bundles around to make it usable 15:47:12 <colindixon> #action zxiiro, LuisGomez, and/or jamoluhrsen to remove reservation from the Beryllium release in the RC3 respin 15:47:27 <adetalhouet> For now the project only contain the driver/library but doesn't contain the bundle to use it 15:47:32 <adetalhouet> This is where we stand 15:47:45 <colindixon> #info adetalhouet says For now the project only contain the driver/library but doesn't contain the bundle to use it 15:47:48 <adetalhouet> So make sense to remove it from Beryllium because there is no added value 15:48:00 <adetalhouet> yet... 15:48:06 <colindixon> adetalhouet: it sounds like that means it should be delivered in Boron and maybe in a Beryllium SR 15:48:20 <colindixon> adetalhouet: or maybe as an out-of-band release 15:48:40 <adetalhouet> colindixon: so far we lack of resource to take care of it 15:48:43 <anipbu> #info adetalhouet says it makes sense to remove reservation from Beryllium because there is no added value 15:48:45 <colindixon> #Info even if reservation isn't removed from Beryllium in code, we shouldn't advertise it as being part of the Beryllium release 15:48:50 <adetalhouet> so I can't plan accordingly 15:49:06 <colindixon> adetalhouet: understood and thanks for explaining things 15:49:14 <adetalhouet> colindixon: anipbu: sure 15:49:26 <anipbu> okay, in that case, i'm ready to move on 15:49:36 <adetalhouet> anipbu: colindixon: thank you 15:49:45 <anipbu> colindixon: any other comments? 15:49:54 <colindixon> #info colindixon notes that reservations should probably wait for Boron, maybe a Beryllium SR, or maybe also just release out-of-band on top of Beryllium if there's time/resources 15:50:00 <colindixon> anipbu: I'm done, thanks adetalhouet 15:50:07 <anipbu> #topic TTP (Table Type Patterns) 15:50:13 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Table_Type_Patterns/Beryllium/Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 15:50:18 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Table_Type_Patterns/Beryllium/Release_Review <-- Release Review 15:50:22 <anipbu> #info Curt Beckmann will be representing TTP 15:50:34 <anipbu> curtbeckmann: anything you would like to add? 15:50:34 <curtbeckmann> I'm here 15:50:44 <curtbeckmann> Nothing to add 15:50:47 <anipbu> curtbeckmann: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 15:51:05 <curtbeckmann> We did test RC3. No blockers 15:51:14 <curtbeckmann> No experimental features. 15:51:19 <ChristineH> #info ChristineH represents SNMP4SDN 15:51:26 <colindixon> since I'm a committer, I'll step back 15:51:32 <curtbeckmann> We have no system level user facing features 15:51:39 <curtbeckmann> Sorry, we have no user facing features 15:51:52 <curtbeckmann> we have separate (non-system level) developer facing features 15:52:12 <colindixon> anipbu: we had planned to have automated system test, but didn't get it done and so have been reporting external, manual system test 15:52:36 <colindixon> anipbu: we have a CLI tool packaged as jar outside the karaf distribution which is user-facing 15:52:43 <curtbeckmann> yes, that's true, manually tested. 15:53:00 <anipbu> #info TTP tested RC3. No blockers 15:53:12 <anipbu> info TTP has no experimental features 15:53:17 <colindixon> #info curtbeckmann notes that while TTP didn't get automated system tests done in Beryllium, it's been manually tested and reported same as having external system test 15:53:36 <curtbeckmann> (one info missing #?) 15:53:37 <anipbu> #info TTP has no user facing features 15:54:00 <colindixon> #info curtbeckmann notes that the only user-facing feature is a CLI tool packaged as a jar outside the karaf distribution 15:54:08 <colindixon> #info TTP has no experimental features 15:54:16 <anipbu> #info TTP has system test waiver approved by integration test team https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Simultaneous_Release/Beryllium/Waiver/System_Test#TTP 15:54:17 <colindixon> curtbeckmann, anipbu: yes, but I got it 15:54:31 <colindixon> #undo 15:54:31 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x203c250> 15:54:36 <colindixon> anipbu: it was rejected actually 15:55:14 <anipbu> colindixon: thanks for the correction 15:55:22 <colindixon> #info the TTP project's system test waiver was rejected, but they have been doing external system tests https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Simultaneous_Release/Beryllium/Waiver/System_Test#TTP 15:56:32 <anipbu> #action curtbeckmann to link to release notes from the release review template 15:56:34 <colindixon> any other questions for curtbeckmann or me? 15:57:02 <anipbu> ttp test plan https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Table_Type_Patterns/Beryllium/System_Test_Report 15:57:58 <colindixon> anipbu, curtbeckmann: release notes are now linked to from the release review 15:58:04 <anipbu> Do you report the status of your manual tests anywhere? 15:58:15 <curtbeckmann> colindixon: thanks for doing that 15:58:31 <anipbu> do you have any pending docs patch? 15:58:51 <curtbeckmann> no pending docs patch. sounds like we need one? 15:58:59 <colindixon> #action curtbeckmann to report our external system test to the RC2 and RC3 status tabs here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hci5TMUPyB6PX8Al-fwfVqvs5SQVa2wZLja_7rKWN6o/edit#gid=149567092 15:59:11 <curtbeckmann> colindixon: will do. 15:59:17 <colindixon> anipbu: as there were no new features in Beryllium, we didn't update our docs 15:59:22 <anipbu> okay 15:59:27 <anipbu> ttp looks good to me 15:59:31 <colindixon> thanks anipbu 15:59:38 <curtbeckmann> thanks as well 15:59:39 <anipbu> Let's mone on 15:59:44 <anipbu> congrats ttp 15:59:54 <anipbu> #topic OVSDB (Open vSwitch Database Management Protocol and Network Virtualization) 16:00:00 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_OVSDB:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:00:04 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_OVSDB:Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:00:08 <anipbu> #info Sam Hague is representing OVSDB 16:00:20 <anipbu> shague_: any comments you would like to make? 16:00:27 * colindixon reads 16:01:23 <shague_> No, I think the wikis cover everything 16:01:39 <anipbu> shague_: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:01:59 <shague_> RC3 testing is underway. Most testing looks good so far. Looking into issue with security group updates not happening from networking-odl. 16:02:05 <colindixon> anipbu: experimental features are in the release review 16:02:08 <shague_> user facing: odl-ovsdb-openstack, odl-ovsdb-southbound, odl-ovsdb-hwvtepsouthbound 16:02:17 <shague_> experimental: odl-ovsdb-openstack-clusteraware: used openflowplugin-li. odl-ovsdb-ui for DLUX 16:02:36 <colindixon> thanks 16:02:45 <anipbu> #info RC testing in progress. no blockers so far (pending completion of RC testing) 16:03:21 <colindixon> shague_: when you say "none" in migration, I assume you mean it's not supported, is that right? 16:03:21 <anipbu> #info experimental features: odl-ovsdb-openstack-clusteraware odl-ovsdb-ui 16:03:37 <anipbu> #info user facing: odl-ovsdb-openstack, odl-ovsdb-southbound, odl-ovsdb-hwvtepsouthbound 16:04:49 <shague_> colindixon: yeah, I guess. We didn't do anythign specific for migration 16:05:15 <colindixon> shague_: I mean, if you think it will work, you should say so, I was just curious what you meant 16:05:49 <colindixon> I'm good 16:06:19 <colindixon> #info colindixon notes that there are docs patches waiting for review, OVSDB has good system test coverage 16:06:47 <colindixon> #action shague_ to make the migration section of the release notes more clear 16:06:57 <colindixon> anipbu, shague_: I'm happy with that 16:07:03 <shague_> colindixon: I will update the section 16:07:17 <anipbu> no slippage in schedule? 16:07:29 <colindixon> shague_: sure, let me know if you want help reviewing it, I'm not trying to single you out, just trying to make sure somebody could understand it if they read it 16:08:01 <shague_> no, slippage, things were tight at the end 16:08:15 <anipbu> thanks 16:08:35 <anipbu> ovsdb looks good to me 16:09:03 <anipbu> colindixon: any other comments? 16:09:12 <colindixon> anipbu: I'm good 16:09:26 <anipbu> Okay let's move on 16:09:29 <anipbu> congrats ovsdb 16:09:30 <anipbu> #topic SNMP4SDN 16:09:34 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNMP4SDN:Beryllium_Release_Note <-- Release Notes 16:09:42 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNMP4SDN:Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:09:56 <anipbu> #info Christine Hsieh is representing snmp4sdn 16:10:08 <ChristineH_> hi 16:10:22 * colindixon reads 16:10:31 <anipbu> ChristineH_: Have you closed the loop on this bug? 16:10:49 <anipbu> ChristineH_: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:11:32 <ChristineH_> anipbu: 1) RC3 is good, no blockers 2) no, no experimental features 3) userfacing feature: odl-snmp4sdn-all 16:11:34 <colindixon> ChristineH_: it's OpenDaylight not OpenDayLight in a few places 16:12:01 <ChristineH_> colindixon: I see, ok I'll correct as OpenDaylight 16:12:22 <anipbu> "SNMP4SDN Plugin is still using AD-SAL" <-- Does this have any compatibility implications for end users? 16:12:41 <anipbu> #info tested on RC3. No blockers. 16:12:48 <anipbu> #info no experimental features 16:12:57 <anipbu> #info user facing features: odl-snmp4sdn-all 16:13:11 <colindixon> ChristineH_: do you have any automated system tests running in integration? 16:13:21 <anipbu> ChristineH_: Have you closed the loop on this bug: https://bugs.opendaylight.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4720 16:13:38 <ChristineH_> colindixon: no automated system tests, system test waiver 16:14:05 <colindixon> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Simultaneous_Release/Beryllium/Waiver/System_Test#SNMP4SDN system test waiver 16:14:30 <colindixon> ChristineH_: if it still uses the AD-SAL... how does it work? 16:14:32 <ChristineH_> anipbu: bug 4720 is not resolved yet 16:14:48 <anipbu> ChristineH_: does ChristineH_ have a system test plan? 16:15:10 <ChristineH_> colindixon, anipdu: snmp4sdn uses just a certain ad-sal artifact 16:15:41 <anipbu> #action ChristineH_ will follow up with bug 4720 16:15:42 <colindixon> ChristineH_: OK and do you publish it now or is it published as part of autorelease? 16:15:54 <colindixon> I'm guessing that it's been fixed since it's working in autorelease 16:16:24 <ChristineH_> anipbu: currently no system test plan 16:16:54 <anipbu> #action ChristineH_ to provide system test plan for manual tests 16:17:01 <ChristineH_> colindixon: excuse me, publish what? 16:17:12 <ChristineH_> anipbu: provide system test plan for manual tests -> ok, sure 16:17:20 <colindixon> #action ChristineH_ to link to the unmerged asciidoc patches from the release review 16:17:29 <colindixon> ChristineH_: the sal 0.7 artifact 16:17:34 <colindixon> I think it's fine 16:17:39 <anipbu> ChristineH_: where do you report the results of the manual tests? 16:17:43 <ChristineH_> thanks, colindixon 16:18:42 <anipbu> #action ChristineH_ to report results of manual tests here as well https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hci5TMUPyB6PX8Al-fwfVqvs5SQVa2wZLja_7rKWN6o/edit#gid=149567092 16:18:49 <ChristineH_> anipbu: current no manual test report, shall I write one? 16:19:02 <ChristineH_> anipbu: ok, thanks 16:19:18 <anipbu> we ask that projects with manual tests should have some write up on the results of their manual tests 16:19:40 <ChristineH_> colindixon: link to the unmerged asciidoc patches from the release review -> ok, thanks 16:19:55 <colindixon> anipbu: whenever you're comfortable, I am 16:20:00 <anipbu> ChristineH_: but at the minimum, they should report the RC3 manual testing on this spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hci5TMUPyB6PX8Al-fwfVqvs5SQVa2wZLja_7rKWN6o/edit#gid=149567092 16:21:33 <anipbu> snmp4sdn looks good to me (assuming the action items are addressed) 16:21:42 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on 16:21:48 <anipbu> congrats snmp4sdn 16:21:52 <ChristineH_> anipbu: ok, i'll update snmp4sdn status on the spreadsheet. 16:21:57 <anipbu> #topic TOPOPROCESSING 16:22:01 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Topology_Processing_Framework:BERYLLIUM_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:22:07 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Topology_Processing_Framework:BERYLLIUM_Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:22:15 <anipbu> #info Andrej Záň is representing topoprocessing 16:22:26 <anipbu> Andrej_Zan: anything you would like to add? 16:22:37 <Andrej_Zan> no 16:22:43 <anipbu> Andrej_Zan: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:23:37 <colindixon> Andrej_Zan: I assume by "I2RS support" you mean for the yang model, not the protocol 16:23:42 <colindixon> is that right?? 16:24:00 <jamoluhrsen> colindixon, anipbu LuisGomez: here finally. 16:24:18 <colindixon> #action Andrej_Zan to say "not supported" instead of "none" for migration 16:24:54 <Andrej_Zan> 1) No, only integration system tests are running on current master 2) No 3) We doesn't have user facing features 16:25:00 <anipbu> #chair jamoluhrsen anipbu2 16:25:00 <odl_meetbot> Current chairs: LuisGomez anipbu anipbu2 colindixon jamoluhrsen phrobb 16:25:09 <Andrej_Zan> Yes I mean yang model 16:25:23 <jamoluhrsen> CSIT has lots of failures. are those understood? 16:25:24 <anipbu> *waves to jamoluhrsen* 16:25:48 <anipbu> #info no experimental features 16:25:54 <colindixon> #action Andrej_Zan to change "I2RS support" to support for 16:25:57 <colindixon> #undo 16:25:57 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Action object at 0x20d3890> 16:25:57 <anipbu> #info no user facing features 16:26:13 <colindixon> #action Andrej_Zan to change "I2RS support" to "support for I2RS topology model" 16:26:26 <Andrej_Zan> Lot of failures are caused by bug 5157 16:27:06 <Andrej_Zan> Most of them are understood and related bugs are created 16:27:36 <jamoluhrsen> thanks Andrej_Zan . obviously the bugs aren't blockers. 16:27:54 <Andrej_Zan> No they aren't blockers 16:28:37 <anipbu> topoprocessing looks good to me 16:29:16 <colindixon> I'm good then 16:29:25 <Andrej_Zan> thanks 16:29:36 <jamoluhrsen> I'm fine. 16:29:43 <anipbu> Okay let's move on 16:29:49 <anipbu> congrats topoprocessing 16:29:51 <jamoluhrsen> Andrej_Zan, go check your CSIT karaf.log artifact. lots of stuff there to look in to. 16:30:14 <Andrej_Zan> Ok, thanks 16:30:24 <colindixon> #action Andrej_Zan to look into CSIT failures 16:30:42 <anipbu> #topic UNIMGR (User Network Interface Manager) 16:30:46 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Unimgr:BerylliumReleaseReview <-- Release Review 16:30:50 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Unimgr:BerylliumReleaseNotes <-- Release Notes 16:30:54 <anipbu> #info Kevin Luehrs is representing UNIMGR 16:31:05 * colindixon reads 16:31:18 <anipbu> KLuehrs: anything you would like to add? 16:31:22 <KLuehrs> No 16:31:33 <anipbu> KLuehrs: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:32:14 <KLuehrs> #info UNI Mgr tested against RC3 and there were no blockers. The project overall is experimental as noted in the UNIMgr:Main page. User-facing: odl-unimgr-ui 16:32:40 <KLuehrs> #info UNI Mgr developer guide is awaiting review 16:33:17 <colindixon> jamoluhrsen, KLuehrs: it looks like the system test was not merged: https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/34362/ 16:33:20 <anipbu> #info UNI Mgr tested against RC3 and there were no blockers. 16:33:22 <jamoluhrsen> #info unimgr has no CSIT, but they have the jobs in place. something alarming there. controller not ever coming up 16:33:37 <anipbu> #info all unimgr features are experimental 16:33:51 <jamoluhrsen> colindixon, correct. CSIT patch came recently and we are going through review now. 16:33:55 <anipbu> #info User-facing: odl-unimgr-ui 16:34:19 <jamoluhrsen> KLuehrs, can you confirm what's broken here? https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/unimgr/job/unimgr-csit-1node-basic-only-beryllium/363/consoleFull 16:34:27 <jamoluhrsen> KLuehrs, I mean is there a bug? 16:34:43 <KLuehrs> I don't know offhand. We will investigate that ASAP. 16:35:38 <KLuehrs> I' 16:35:41 <jamoluhrsen> so from a user perspective (using the csit job) unimgr does not work. 16:36:10 <anipbu> #action unimgr will investigate csit failure and follow up with jamoluhrsen https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/unimgr/job/unimgr-csit-1node-basic-only-beryllium/363/consoleFull 16:36:54 <colindixon> anipbu: based on the fact that UNIMgr is experimental and it's first release, things look fine on my end 16:37:04 <anipbu> unimgr is new to Beryllium, this being the first release. you could probably remove the section "Changes Since Previous Releases" 16:37:14 <KLuehrs> OK 16:37:41 <anipbu> #action KLuehrs to update the release review with links to the docs guides once it's merged 16:37:57 <KLuehrs> OK 16:38:39 <anipbu> #info https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/34682/ <-- mising docs patch 16:38:49 <jamoluhrsen> I would say that until we know unimgr works (e.g. we can install it and use restconf) I can't say it's ok from system test side 16:38:49 <anipbu> KLuehrs: any other docs patches youre missing? 16:39:09 <KLuehrs> No that's the only document 16:39:31 <colindixon> KLuehrs: is there supposed to be user documentation or not in this release? 16:40:06 <adetalhouet> jamoluhrsen: the patch currently in review for UniMgr CSIT will fix those issues 16:40:25 <KLuehrs> We combined User and Developer documentation. If TSC would like to see separate User Document we will create that. 16:41:00 <colindixon> #action KLuehrs will separate the user and developer documentation 16:41:29 <anipbu> jamoluhrsen KLuehrs are manual tests for unimgr reported anywhere (since CSIT are not yet merged)? 16:41:33 <jamoluhrsen> adetalhouet, are you sure? What I see is that restconf never comes up, so any robot patch wont run anyway. 16:41:45 <adetalhouet> yes because the test suite was wrongly named 16:42:50 <adetalhouet> functionality is unimgr-basic, test suite is unimgr so that doesn't work in the eye of our infra, test suite must be named <project>-<functionality> 16:43:00 <adetalhouet> the patch currently in review fix that 16:43:00 <KLuehrs> UNI Manager manual test is conducted by installing with northbound API implementations and UI. We have run this as a demo. 16:43:11 <anipbu> okay 16:43:17 <anipbu> unimgr looks good to me 16:43:24 <colindixon> anipbu: I'm also good 16:43:30 <anipbu> jamoluhrsen: do you feel we need a follow up with unimgr? 16:44:21 <jamoluhrsen> anipbu, yes. I would not give OK yet from system test if that matters. 16:44:36 <anipbu> #action anipbu will start a follow up for unimgr 16:45:02 <anipbu> #info follow up to discuss 1) testing for unimgr 16:45:06 <anipbu> Okay let's move on 16:45:10 <anipbu> #topic CENTINEL 16:45:14 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Centinel:Beryllium:Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:45:18 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Centinel:Beryllium:Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:45:21 <anipbu> #info Sumit Kapoor is representing CENTINEL 16:45:26 <anipbu> sumit_kapoor: anything you would like to add? 16:45:30 <anipbu> sumit_kapoor: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:45:48 <sumit_kapoor> we have done RC3 completion with no blockers 16:45:58 <sumit_kapoor> no experimental features 16:46:11 <sumit_kapoor> user facing feature : odl-centinel-all 16:47:22 <colindixon> sumit_kapoor: are there any security considerations in attaching centinel to outside components? 16:47:42 <colindixon> sumit_kapoor: do you use TLS/SSL or something to encrypt data? are there credentials, how are they stored? 16:47:50 <anipbu> #info tesed against RC3. no blockers 16:47:52 <jamoluhrsen> #info centinel has no CSIT. 16:48:00 <anipbu> #info no experimental features 16:48:08 <anipbu> #info user facing feature : odl-centinel-all 16:48:13 <sumit_kapoor> no there is no security issues. We are not supporting AAA for now . 16:48:48 <colindixon> sumit_kapoor: so that means that you haven't thought about security yet, not that there aren't issues 16:49:11 <anipbu> so the logs are being sent insecurely form device to the log aggregator? 16:49:31 <colindixon> sumit_kapoor: or am I wrong, basically, if somebody goes to deploy this, it sounds like there's no guarantee that they won't be sending log information in the clear 16:49:34 <anipbu> #info https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/29441/ <-- centinel pending docs patch 16:49:56 <sumit_kapoor> we are using REST API .. 16:50:34 <anipbu> #action centinel to add with CSIT job with functional coverage 16:50:45 <colindixon> sumit_kapoor: so, is data moved from logging to flume? 16:50:54 <colindixon> is it encrypted? 16:51:29 <sumit_kapoor> we have created syslog collector .. 16:51:53 <sumit_kapoor> syslog data from sources like odl and sflow goes to collector 16:51:56 <anipbu> sumit_kapoor: if there are no CSIT job, how was your features tested? Has it been tested thoroughly enough for use in production? Would it warrant marking centinel as experimental? 16:52:07 <sumit_kapoor> than we using flume client to persist it 16:52:23 <colindixon> #action sumit_kapoor to follow up with anipbu and colindixon about security concerns 16:52:25 <sumit_kapoor> not encrypted yet 16:52:39 <colindixon> sumit_kapoor: so, that would be something to list in security concerns 16:52:47 <sumit_kapoor> we have done unit testing and manual testing 16:53:00 <anipbu> jamoluhrsen: sumit_kapoor: the system test plan has ZERO test cases: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Centinel:Beryllium_Feature_Integration_System_Test 16:53:02 <colindixon> sumit_kapoor: presumably Flume also requires that you provide credentials, right? how are they stored in centinel? 16:53:05 <sumit_kapoor> we have tested all REST APIs and web interface 16:53:17 <anipbu> #action centinel to identify the test cases in system test plan 16:53:24 <sumit_kapoor> it is configurable .. 16:53:25 <colindixon> #Info sumit_kapoor says that they've done manual testing 16:53:32 <anipbu> sumit_kapoor: where do you report the manual testing? 16:53:44 <sumit_kapoor> configuration apis are supported using REST as well using WEB interface 16:53:56 <colindixon> assuming the above things get fixed (security concerns and test reporting) I'm OK 16:54:17 <sumit_kapoor> we save all configurable data in md-sal 16:54:55 <sumit_kapoor> we were updating tracker till RC3 .. 16:55:03 <jamoluhrsen> I see nothing I can go by for system test, but if these are experimental features I am OK with it. 16:55:08 <anipbu> assuming the test issues are completed, centinel looks good to me 16:55:23 <anipbu> jamoluhrsen: centinel is NOT experimental 16:55:50 <anipbu> see comment above from sumit_kapoor 16:55:58 <anipbu> we are 5 minute past 16:56:05 <anipbu> do we need a follow up for centinel? 16:56:15 <colindixon> anipbu: at least over e-mail, I think so 16:56:52 <jamoluhrsen> ok another follow up. 16:56:55 <anipbu> #action anipbu to follow up email with centinel regarding 1) security concerns 2) testing coverage 3) marking centinel as experimental 16:57:06 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on 16:57:11 <anipbu> #topic TSDR 16:57:23 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSDR:Beryllium:Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:57:34 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSDR:Beryllium:Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:57:46 <anipbu> #info YuLing Chen is representing TSDR 16:57:55 <anipbu> yuling: anything you would like to add? 16:58:07 <yuling> Yes, we've done all the manual testing with results on https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/TSDR_Beryllium_:TSDR_Integration_System_Test 16:58:23 <yuling> We've also automated all the test cases, half of them have been running on Jenkins 16:58:33 <colindixon> yuling: I have similar questions about how TSDR talks to external services, wether it's encrypted and how credentials are stored 16:58:34 <yuling> half of them running successfully on staging server 16:58:43 <jamoluhrsen> yuling, can you please add your system test as a link from here: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/CrossProject:Integration_Group/Project_System_Test_Report 16:58:46 <yuling> our test lead is working on moving all the automation test cases onto Jenkins 16:58:56 <yuling> ok, will do 16:59:10 <yuling> We've also done longevity testing and everything looked good 16:59:16 <anipbu> yuling: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:59:48 <yuling> performance and scalability testing is still going on... according to our initial performance testing results, it's at least as good as lithium 16:59:58 <yuling> yes, we've tested RC3 and everything looks good 17:00:07 <yuling> no experimental features 17:00:12 <anipbu> #info tested against RC3. no blockers 17:00:17 <yuling> user facing features are: 17:00:20 <anipbu> #info no experimental features 17:00:21 <jamoluhrsen> #info some existing tsdr system test is there and passing. 17:00:38 <yuling> odl-tsdr-hsqldb-all odl-tsdr-hbase odl-tsdr-cassandra odl-tsdr-openflow-statistics-collector odl-tsdr-netflow-statistics-collector odl-tsdr-snmp-data-collector odl-tsdr-syslog-collector odl-tsdr-controller-metrics-collector 17:01:01 <yuling> three of them are tsdr data stores 17:01:03 <colindixon> yuling: that's a long list of user-facing features... 17:01:07 <yuling> others are tsdr data collectors 17:01:10 <anipbu> info https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/28542/ <-- Pending docs patches for TSDR 17:01:22 <yuling> yes, I know. However the administrator needs to know what data collectors to install 17:01:23 <colindixon> yuling: that makes sense 17:01:34 <anipbu> #info user facing features: odl-tsdr-hsqldb-all odl-tsdr-hbase odl-tsdr-cassandra odl-tsdr-openflow-statistics-collector odl-tsdr-netflow-statistics-collector odl-tsdr-snmp-data-collector odl-tsdr-syslog-collector odl-tsdr-controller-metrics-collector 17:01:43 <anipbu> tsdr looks good to me 17:01:50 <colindixon> #info yuling notes that 3 are data stores and the rest are collectors 17:01:55 <colindixon> anipbu: I agree 17:01:59 <yuling> we don't want them to use bundled features to blindly install all the cllectors to increase the system resource cost 17:02:03 <yuling> thanks 17:02:04 <colindixon> well, actually 17:02:40 <colindixon> #action yuling to make notes about the data stores and the security of sending information to them, i.e., is it encrypted in flight and how credentials for the stores are stored 17:02:46 <colindixon> yuling: does that make sense? 17:03:05 <colindixon> assuming that's put in the release notes, I'm happy 17:03:07 <yuling> yes, sure. we do have credentials enabled for collectors, such as snmp 17:03:12 <anipbu> jamoluhrsen: any additional comments you would like to make? 17:03:14 <yuling> will send out information offline 17:03:27 <jamoluhrsen> I'm good with this one. 17:03:33 <anipbu> Okay let's move on 17:03:36 <anipbu> congrats tsdr 17:03:41 <anipbu> #topic SNMP 17:03:46 <yuling> thanks very much 17:03:47 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNMP_PLugin:Beryllium <-- Release Review 17:03:52 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNMP_Plugin:SNMP_Plugin:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 17:03:56 <anipbu> #info Vaishali Mithbaokar is representing SNMP 17:04:14 <anipbu> Vaishali: anything you would like to add? 17:04:28 <Vaishali> As mentioned in release notes, we dont have any new feature added to Beryllium, except bug fixes 17:04:51 <colindixon> anipbu: that's not a release review 17:05:03 <jamoluhrsen> #info has one upstream CSIT test case. 17:05:19 <jamoluhrsen> but it's failing with 500 status. Vaishali is there an open bug for this? 17:05:20 <colindixon> Vaishali: is there a release review document to go with the release notes? 17:05:44 <Vaishali> the release review is at https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNMP_PLugin:Beryllium 17:05:47 <anipbu> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNMP_PLugin:Beryllium 17:05:51 <Vaishali> I can addlink to it from release notes 17:05:51 <anipbu> It's missing some sections though 17:05:58 <colindixon> ok 17:06:19 <Vaishali> Jamo, I will open a bug to track CSIT test case, to update it to use SNMP simulator 17:06:32 <Vaishali> which section is missing, can you let me know? I will update 17:06:33 <colindixon> Vaishali: sorry, the name of the page just confused me 17:06:38 <anipbu> security concerns 17:06:45 <Vaishali> oh ok, sorry, I willupdate it 17:06:45 <jamoluhrsen> Vaishali, thanks. also, where is the stystem test template? 17:06:46 <anipbu> i believe snmp uses SSH? 17:07:03 <colindixon> anipbu: security concerns is there, but I have questions similar to above 17:07:18 <colindixon> is the connection encrypted? how are credentials stored? 17:07:36 <colindixon> #info Vaishali points out that Beryllium added no new features for SNMP 17:07:58 <Vaishali> I will have to ask about encryption to Adam, who is owner. Will get back in email thread 17:08:19 <Vaishali> yeah, no new features in Berryliuj, so whatever we had in Lithium holds good 17:09:05 <anipbu> Vaishali: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 17:09:12 * jamoluhrsen still looking for the system test plan. can't find it. 17:09:28 <anipbu> #action Vaishali to update the security section in SNMP 17:09:37 <anipbu> #action Vaishali to provide system test plan 17:09:43 <colindixon> anipbu: other than that, I'm OK 17:09:56 <colindixon> Vaishali: how has SNMP been tested? 17:10:09 <Vaishali> RC3 tested. No blocker. Need to update system test as Jamo mentioned, to use SNMP simulator, will open bug to track same. User facing feature is odl-snmp-plugin 17:10:11 <jamoluhrsen> with those actions (bug, provide system test plan) I'm OK. 17:10:35 <Vaishali> yes, I will update those 17:10:39 <anipbu> #action Vaishali will open bug for failing CSIT job 17:10:46 <anipbu> #info tested RC3. No blockers 17:11:09 <anipbu> #info user facing feature is odl-snmp-plugin 17:11:24 <anipbu> Vaishali: any experimental? 17:11:45 <Vaishali> Not that I know off. But will ask Adam and get back to you on experimental 17:11:51 <anipbu> #info no experimental features 17:12:08 <anipbu> snmp looks good to (assuming actions are addressed) 17:12:11 <anipbu> Let's move on 17:12:13 <colindixon> anipbu: I agree 17:12:15 <anipbu> congrats snmp 17:12:19 <anipbu> #topic SNMP 17:12:20 <Vaishali> thx 17:12:27 <anipbu> #topic GROUPBASEDPOLICY 17:12:31 <alagalah> anipbu: hello 17:12:34 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Group_Based_Policy_(GBP)/Releases/Beryllium:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 17:12:38 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Group_Based_Policy_(GBP)/Releases/Beryllium/Release_Review <-- Release Review 17:12:42 <anipbu> #info Keith Burns is representing GROUPBASEDPOLICY 17:12:52 <anipbu> alagalah: anything you would like to add? 17:12:58 <alagalah> Maybe this: 17:13:12 <alagalah> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Group_Based_Policy_(GBP)/CSIT CSIT in gdoc 17:13:16 <anipbu> alagalah: 1) Have you tested against RC3 and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 17:13:27 <alagalah> anipbu: 1. no 17:13:42 <alagalah> 2. hmmmmm maybe iovisor and I can explain in more detail 17:14:08 <colindixon> alagalah: does n/a mean migration isn't supported? 17:14:10 <alagalah> 3. Listed in the https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Group_Based_Policy_(GBP)/Releases/Beryllium/Release_Review#Features 17:14:35 <alagalah> colindixon: Is migration really supported anywhere? I can't see how its possible... we haven't tried it though to be honest 17:14:40 <alagalah> colindixon: Untested ? 17:14:54 <alagalah> colindixon: I thought n/a but untested would be better 17:15:00 <anipbu> #info experimental features: iovisor 17:15:08 <colindixon> alagalah: untested sounds good 17:15:23 <alagalah> #info iovisor is considered "experimental" as it involves an external agent in another repository 17:15:24 <colindixon> alagalah: it's just more clear what's meant if you come across it 17:15:40 <alagalah> #info until we work out a way to sync releases then its fair to say "experimental" 17:15:40 <colindixon> alagalah: there have been a few projects that actually tested migration, to my surprise 17:15:45 <alagalah> colindixon: Fair question 17:16:14 <colindixon> #action alagalah to say that migration hasn't been tested instead of "n/a" 17:16:16 <anipbu> #info iovisor is considered "experimental" as it involves an external agent in another 17:16:33 <alagalah> anipbu: correct, github.com/iovisor 17:16:42 <colindixon> anipbu, alagalah: I'm good, jamoluhrsen any comments? 17:16:44 <jamoluhrsen> #info CSIT is there, other good system test info (too much to read now). 17:16:49 <jamoluhrsen> good stuff alagalah 17:16:52 <anipbu> #link github.com/iovisor 17:16:54 <alagalah> jamoluhrsen: Gracias 17:17:03 <jamoluhrsen> oh, can you link your system test plan to our landing page? 17:17:06 <alagalah> jamoluhrsen: More to come :) 17:17:08 <jamoluhrsen> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/CrossProject:Integration_Group/Project_System_Test_Report 17:17:09 <colindixon> #info jamoluhrsen says the GBP system tests is good stuff (which is high praise) 17:17:12 <alagalah> Ack 17:17:17 <colindixon> anipbu: I'm good 17:17:33 <anipbu> gbp looks good to me 17:17:40 <anipbu> let's move on 17:17:46 <anipbu> congrats groupbasedpolicy 17:17:46 <colindixon> as an aside, do we want to have a TWS on Boron planning today? do we have more things to discuss are people around? 17:17:51 <alagalah> anipbu: thanks ! 17:17:52 <anipbu> okay that's it for today 17:17:54 <colindixon> anipbu: I think we're done 17:17:57 <colindixon> thanks anipbu 17:18:05 <alagalah> colindixon: thanks! 17:18:10 <anipbu> we've covered all the projects for today 17:18:16 <jamoluhrsen> colindixon, I know half of people I know are not working today in US. just fyi 17:18:21 <anipbu> thanks colindixon jamoluhrsen 17:18:27 <colindixon> jamoluhrsen: yeah, that's my take too 17:18:30 <jamoluhrsen> thanks to you as well anipbu 17:18:37 <anipbu> TWS is bad idea for today because of holiday 17:18:41 <colindixon> we'll cancel the TWS and ask people to comment on the mailing list 17:18:44 <colindixon> anipbu: +1 17:18:44 <colindixon> thanks 17:19:05 <anipbu> #topic cookies 17:19:15 <anipbu> #endmeeting