14:12:08 #startmeeting Weekly Technical Discussion 14:12:08 Meeting started Thu Jan 12 14:12:08 2017 UTC. The chair is bh526r. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:12:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:12:08 The meeting name has been set to 'weekly_technical_discussion' 14:12:40 #info Uli started with describing current scenario list he captured from wiki page 14:14:04 #info Team discussed the owners of scenarios 14:15:34 #info Team looked at the historical reasons of why majority of scenario owners are installer teams, i.e. complexity of integration techniques of different installers 14:16:20 #info There were some exceptions, such as BGPVPN scenario owner is BGPVPN project 14:18:27 #info Team discussed the basic rationale, ie. whoever cares about the scenario, whoever does the work 14:19:08 #info "Care" means having time and expertise, i.e. interested in working on it, and able to work on it 14:21:43 #info Tim indicated that there are inherent relationships among scenarios. 14:22:07 #info For example, BGPVPN scenario is based on odl_l2 scenarios 14:25:03 #info At a certain time, sub-scenarios may be mature enough and can be merged back to parent scenario 14:31:50 #info Team examined the history of why odl_l2 is needed, i.e primarily because IPv6 support in odl_l3 wasn't there yet. If we wanted IPv6 feature in tenant networks, we could only use OpenStack L3 agent + odl_l2 14:32:56 #info Now IPv6 support in ODL L3 is getting much better, and there still might be some gaps 14:34:40 #info Soon in the future, ODL L3 can fully support IPv6, and we will no longer need odl_l2 14:35:15 #info One suggestion is to rename odl_l2 to IPv6 scenario as part of consolidation effort 14:39:05 #info Tim suggested to clean up scenario owner first 14:39:47 #info Uli indicated that the challenge is to find the people first 14:45:21 #info Consensus is to ask current scenario owners to identify better alternatives that can own scenarios 14:47:05 #info Next step is to ask scenario owners to align with installers 14:50:58 #info One approach is to stay as-is, whatever is done historically, keep it that way 14:52:01 #info The other approach is to proactively identify the difference among installers, and consolidate / align them to get the same end state 14:53:02 #info The goal is that for feature testing, it should be agnostic of installers 14:57:30 #info The immediate action is for Uli to work with community and find the better owners of scenarios 15:03:23 #info Discussion then went on HA v.s. noha 15:03:51 #info We will continue discussion next week. 15:04:05 #endmeeting