Hi all, I support this API proposal. It is simple and conveys clear semantics. Thanks Ryan!
Cathy From: Hemanth Ravi [mailto:hemanthrav...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:13 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: Subrahmanyam Ongole Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][policy] Bridging the 2-group gap in group policy Hi, Adding this CLI command seems to be a good way to provide support for the second model. This can be submitted as a new review patch to work through the approaches to implement this. I suggest the current CLI patch [1] be reviewed for the existing spec and completed. Ryan, would it possible for you to start a new review submit for the new command(s). Could you also provide any references for "profiled" API in IETF, CCITT. Thanks, -hemanth [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104013 On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com<mailto:rmo...@us.ibm.com>> wrote: As promised in Monday's Neutron IRC minutes [1], this mail is a "trip down memory lane" looking at the history of the Neutron GP project.. The original GP google doc [2] included specifying policy via both a produce/consume 1-group approach and as a link between two groups. There was an email thread [3] that discussed the relationship between these models early on, but that discussion petered out and during a later IRC meeting [4] the concept of contracts were added, but without changing the basic use case requirements from the original document. A followup meeting [5] began the discussion of how to express the original model from the contract data model but that discussion doesn't appear to have been completed either. The PoC in Atlanta raised a set of issues [6],[7] around the complexity of the resulting PoC code. The good news is that having looked through the proposed GP code commits (links to which can be found at [8) I believe that folks that want to be able to specify policies via the 2-group approach (and yes, I'm one of them) can have that without changing the model encoded in those commits. Rather, it can be done via the WiP CLI code commit by providing a "profiled" API - this is a technique used by the IETF, CCITT, etc. to allow a rich API to be consumed in common ways. In this case, what I'm envisioning is something like neutron policy-apply [policy rule] [src group] [destination group] in this case, the CLI would perform the contract creation for the policy rule, and assigning the proper produce/consume edits to the specified source and destination groups. Note: this is in addition to the CLI providing direct access to the underlying data model. I believe that this is the simplest way to "bridge the gap" and provide support to folks who want to specify policy as something between two groups. Ryan Moats (regXboi) References: [1] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking/2014/networking.2014-07-28-21.02.log.txt [2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIrupCD9E/edit#<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaBIrupCD9E/edit> [3] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/022150.html [4] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-02-27-19.00.log.html [5] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-03-20-19.00.log.html [6] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-May/035661.html [7] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking_policy/2014/networking_policy.2014-05-22-18.01.log.html [8] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/Neutron_Group_Policy _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
