===================================== #opendaylight-nic: NIC Weekly Meeting ===================================== Meeting started by ShaunWackerly at 16:03:14 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetings.opendaylight.org/opendaylight-nic/2015/nic_weekly_meeting/opendaylight-nic-nic_weekly_meeting.2015-02-20-16.03.log.html . Meeting summary --------------- * gzhao (gzhao, 16:04:06) * ShaunWackerly (ShaunWackerly, 16:04:13) * PTL election, will need to add +1's from email (ShaunWackerly, 16:08:59) * devond recommends that dmentze be considered project lead, unless any objections (ShaunWackerly, 16:09:27) * devond asks how Test Contact is chosen (ShaunWackerly, 16:09:57) * colindixon says typically Test Contact is PTL, unless someone volunteers to do the work (ShaunWackerly, 16:10:29) * colindixon says Test Contact must assure at least one system test (ShaunWackerly, 16:11:35) * dlenrow points out that if Test Contact goes on vacation, they need to identify a replacement (ShaunWackerly, 16:12:42) * Documentation Contact, will likely follow same path as Test Contact (ShaunWackerly, 16:13:05) * dmentze will be listed for both, then possibly delegate later (ShaunWackerly, 16:14:05) * F2F follow-up (ShaunWackerly, 16:14:46) * dlenrow will present slides showing collaboration with ONF (ShaunWackerly, 16:15:24) * dlenrow says it would be good for ODL to be reference implementation of Intent NBI (ShaunWackerly, 16:16:22) * LINK: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Network_Intent_Composition:F2F-02-18-15 <-- f2f meeting slides (gzhao, 16:16:22) * dlenrow says a possible conflict is that ONF NBI decision may be slower (ShaunWackerly, 16:17:20) * dlenrow says ONF can't slow down NIC (ShaunWackerly, 16:17:34) * dlenrow presents possible solution to put approved (official) ONF info model fragments in ONF intent repo (ShaunWackerly, 16:18:09) * dlenrow says a conversion tool could convert from official/non-official model fragments in ONF intent repo, to a format that NIC could consume (ShaunWackerly, 16:18:50) * dlenrow says best case would be ONF defining broadly-adopted IM fragments (ShaunWackerly, 16:19:39) * dlenrow says worst case is that ONF and ODL diverge information models (IMs) (ShaunWackerly, 16:20:08) * dlenrow suggests that we look at how to accomplish his proposed possible solution (ShaunWackerly, 16:21:18) * dbainbri says that models have already diverged, since NIC has some code/yang and ONF does not (ShaunWackerly, 16:22:00) * dlenrow says progress has been made on both sides, so we'll have some initial sync up work (ShaunWackerly, 16:22:18) * dmentze asks why ONF folks wouldn't participate in NIC project (ShaunWackerly, 16:23:07) * LINK: https://lists.opendaylight.org/pipermail/nic-dev/2015-February/000360.html this is a mailing list thread which has some conversation about the ONF/ODL interactions (colindixon, 16:23:26) * dlenrow says he is chair of NBI working group, and colindixon and dbainbri are also working on ONF (ShaunWackerly, 16:23:26) * dmentze says that moving code out of NIC is not contributing (ShaunWackerly, 16:23:48) * dlenrow says goal of NBI is to develop a controller-agnostic NBI, and ODL is one of the controllers which should align with that NBI (ShaunWackerly, 16:24:50) * dmentze says that defining the model is different than moving code (ShaunWackerly, 16:25:08) * dlenrow says that he is not proposing to move code from NIC to ODL (ShaunWackerly, 16:25:33) * dlenrow asks if we could get some people to work out details of how this might work (ShaunWackerly, 16:26:07) * dmentze asks whether ideas or code are flowing from ONF to ODL (ShaunWackerly, 16:26:26) * dlenrow says it is TBD (ShaunWackerly, 16:26:33) * colindixon says that the definition could reside in ONF, then ODL could consume the information model (on the level of yang) (ShaunWackerly, 16:27:11) * colindixon says that the code which implements the NBI could reside fully in NIC/ODL (ShaunWackerly, 16:27:35) * colindixon says he can help dlenrow with details of how to accomplish this (ShaunWackerly, 16:28:05) * colindixon asks if we agree that the goal is something we want (ShaunWackerly, 16:29:00) * dbainbri says that phrobb identified some issues with 3rd party artifacts like this previously (ShaunWackerly, 16:29:29) * colindixon says he thinks that we can find a way for it to work (ShaunWackerly, 16:30:36) * colindixon and dbainbri discuss details of how to keep artifact snapshots over time, so they aren't lost (ShaunWackerly, 16:31:49) * colindixon identifies some technical details, starting with licensing (apache vs EPL) (ShaunWackerly, 16:32:35) * can go apache->EPL, but not EPL->apache (ShaunWackerly, 16:32:46) * colindixon says this means ODL could never push code back to ONF (ShaunWackerly, 16:33:10) * colindixon says intellectual property becomes an issue, between ODL and ONF (IP sharing) (ShaunWackerly, 16:33:35) * dlenrow says linux foundation lawyers and other lawyers are sorting this out (ShaunWackerly, 16:33:52) * dlenrow says that anyone can participate in ONF, so ODL members are not restricted (ShaunWackerly, 16:34:39) * ShaunWackerly asks if non-ONF members need to join an ONF NBI to affect the NIC API (ShaunWackerly, 16:36:43) * colindixon says that it would be an additional 1-hour per week, plus some email list stuff (ShaunWackerly, 16:37:09) * dbainbri says that ODL is currently focused on implementation, ONF discussion is more academic right now (ShaunWackerly, 16:38:32) * dlenrow says that we could split discussions along those lines (academic/implementation) (ShaunWackerly, 16:39:01) * colindixon says that if you are only interested in 10% of a project, you are doing a disservice if you don't join the mailing list (ShaunWackerly, 16:39:30) * colindixon implies that if ShaunWackerly does a good job taking notes, it will prevent that problem for NIC (personal commentary :) ) (ShaunWackerly, 16:39:51) * colindixon says we should make someone responsible for producing a project summary for each project per week (ShaunWackerly, 16:40:15) * colindixon identifies another risk: what if ONF does weird things? (ShaunWackerly, 16:40:43) * colindixon says that if NIC dislikes the ONF NBI, then we'd have a technical divergence (ShaunWackerly, 16:41:29) * dmentze says that other problems like ONF moving too slow or ONF's NBI being unimplementable are other risks (ShaunWackerly, 16:42:22) * colindixon mildly agrees, says those are forms of divergence (ShaunWackerly, 16:42:38) * colindixon says the only way to stop divergence is to participate (ShaunWackerly, 16:43:14) * dlenrow says the build process could omit some pieces of the NBI which are problematic, until there's time to implement them (ShaunWackerly, 16:43:42) * colindixon says we shouldn't walk away from potential upsides because of potential downsides (ShaunWackerly, 16:44:24) * colindixon says there is value to having academic input, if it can be maintained (ShaunWackerly, 16:44:55) * dlenrow says the value is having a single interface that's larger than a single controller (ShaunWackerly, 16:45:09) * dlenrow acknowledges that there are some risks and inconveniences (ShaunWackerly, 16:45:34) * dbainbri agrees that ONF has thought about this a while and can provide value from various perspectives that the NIC project people have not thought about. The trick is prioritizing that insight in terms of development (colindixon, 16:46:49) * ShaunWackerly asks if lithium API deliverable is in conflict with waiting for ONF NBI (ShaunWackerly, 16:47:09) * dlenrow says that lithium API wouldn't necessarily be equivalent to ONF NBI (ShaunWackerly, 16:48:52) * dlenrow says big picture goal is to have a common NBI (ShaunWackerly, 16:49:22) * dmentze suggests that ONF ideas be shared, dlenrow says it is currently empty (repository) (ShaunWackerly, 16:49:54) * dlenrow says they could use current NIC yang model as starting point (ShaunWackerly, 16:50:06) * dlenrow says ODL isn't ready to start, dmentze says that NIC's yang isn't ready to go either (ShaunWackerly, 16:50:33) * colindixon says the current yang model could be lifted from NIC (ShaunWackerly, 16:51:00) * dmentze says the current model is not agreed upon (ShaunWackerly, 16:51:10) * colindixon says that agreement within NIC may align with ONF timing for readiness (ShaunWackerly, 16:51:44) * colindixon says it would be nice for ONF to publish a maven artifact (ShaunWackerly, 16:52:13) * dmentze asks if NIC team has choice for what they pull from ONF (ShaunWackerly, 16:53:36) * colindixon says ONF could do a weekly release of their model (ShaunWackerly, 16:53:57) * dmentze objects to another group (ONF) making changes to a model that NIC has to support (ShaunWackerly, 16:54:23) * colindixon says that as long as ONF produces release versions, there is no automatic tethering of NIC to ONF (ShaunWackerly, 16:54:47) * dmentze says NIC could internally review and approve (ShaunWackerly, 16:55:03) * colindixon says that ODL NIC could use augmentations to adapt ONF NBI (?) (ShaunWackerly, 16:55:50) * mlemay says he proposed to ONF that the model should be totally decoupled from a language (ShaunWackerly, 16:56:33) * mlemay says that ONF would be completely orthogonal, something like UML, that's mappable to NIC (ShaunWackerly, 16:57:11) * mlemay says we may need a translation/shim/adapter for NIC ODL (ShaunWackerly, 16:57:39) * dlenrow proposes discussion through email this next week (ShaunWackerly, 16:58:16) * mlemay says he is trying to build a compiler which goes to intent instructions (ShaunWackerly, 16:58:37) * dbainbri asks if mlemay's proposal will compile from intent into OpenFlow, or something else (ShaunWackerly, 16:59:29) * dlenrow says that mlemay's proposal is different from dlenrow's proposal (ShaunWackerly, 17:00:22) * dmentze suggests we set up a separate discussion for discussing and deciding between proposals (ShaunWackerly, 17:00:51) * ACTION: dmentze will email to list regarding plan for making progress toward NIC lithium deliverables (ShaunWackerly, 17:01:41) * ACTION: mlemay and dlenrow will coordinate with colindixon and others to prepare summary of general approach being proposed (ShaunWackerly, 17:02:32) * ACTION: colindixon will work on the summary of the proposal (ShaunWackerly, 17:04:20) * colindixon supports the notion of separating implementation discussion groups from API design (ShaunWackerly, 17:05:47) Meeting ended at 17:05:59 UTC. Action items, by person ----------------------- * colindixon * mlemay and dlenrow will coordinate with colindixon and others to prepare summary of general approach being proposed * colindixon will work on the summary of the proposal * mlemay * mlemay and dlenrow will coordinate with colindixon and others to prepare summary of general approach being proposed People present (lines said) --------------------------- * ShaunWackerly (94) * dbainbri (10) * gzhao (4) * odl_meetbot (3) * colindixon (2) * mlemay (1) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4