Hi, all.
Dispite of all the discussion about airship or pdf, I think one common
understanding here is "we need a generic discription file for the installers,
which is installer agnostic". I think this is also a common understanding
within the CNTT RI. Given this fact, I think what we are doing in airship 2.0,
PDF evolvement, and Chp05 of CNTT RI which is a discription file for installer
for the CNTT Jan. release, are all targeting to this goal.
I think it was a good discussion on yesterday's TSC call that we are not
blocking any project, but we just need to give the community a pressure when
will we reach this common goal. For this common goal, it does not just simply
mean one should follow the other, but people should sit together, work on the
discription files, and have it evolve to fit our end user's needs. And this
does not mean we still have years to work on this. At least from the CNTT RI
WS, we really have a deadline of this January to release the discription file.
May I suggest a workable plan for driving this as follows:
1. we work on the discription files requirement defined in chp05 of CNTT,
https://github.com/cntt-n/CNTT/pull/535. I would suggest any one who really
care about the common discription file to join the discussion and provide
comments at this thread. And let us target Jan. release of CNTT for a common
discription file
2. Evolve PDF according to the requirements defined in chp05, with a given
deadline ( I think J release for OPNFV probably would be too late, but I guess
that probably is something we can target now...)
3. Evolve all installers, including airship, to fit into PDF accordingly.
中国移动研究院
网络与IT技术研究所
付乔 15901025951
From: SHOSTAK, MARK
Date: 2019-11-27 10:53
To: Georg Kunz; Jim Baker
CC: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss][opnfv-tsc] Airship and PDF
Thanks George,
That’s basically what I’ve seen so far. Unfortunately, a schema != a
specification. While there is some context in the structure of the schema,
there is still a great deal of ambiguity. Hacking against it is fine, but I’m
not sure I’d want to develop against it.
That said, we do have a proposed plugfeast challenge to create a preprocessor
to mediate PDF to Airship manifest. Perhaps we can incorporate an
objective/requirement to show their work, so we can capture more insight/data
about the fields. Jim?
---
WRT your question #2, note the Airship manifests describe the full stack soup
to nuts (i.e. h/w, s/w, networking, services, etc.), while the PDF represents a
subset of that information, so when xlating to Airship the PDF will have to be
supplemented with information to tell Airship what you’d like it to do with the
infra described in the PDF. Airship is currently working on the 2.0 version,
and that includes enhancements/changes to the manifest format. You might be on
to something when you talk about evolving Airship and the PDF to go together.
They’re both YAML, and given Airship covers the full stack, the PDF (or SDF or
other) may be able to inherit from Airship, and potentially vice versa.
Disclaimer: I use Airship, but don’t work on it, and do not represent it any
more than anyone else. This is just brainstorming from your original comments.
Thanks,
-Mark
From: Georg Kunz [mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 16:20
To: SHOSTAK, MARK <ms7...@att.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss][opnfv-tsc] Airship and PDF
Hi Mark,
Hoping that the pharos folks will correct me if I am wrong, the best source of
information I am aware of is the pharos repo [1] which holds the schema of the
pod descriptor file and an example. Moreover, pod descriptor files for the
various OPNFV labs are also stored in this repo [2].
[1] https://github.com/opnfv/pharos/tree/master/config/pdf
[2] https://github.com/opnfv/pharos/tree/master/labs
Best regards
Georg
From: SHOSTAK, MARK <ms7...@att.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:45 PM
To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com>
Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss][opnfv-tsc] Airship and PDF
Hi Georg, To that end, do you (or anyone) have the specification for PDF? To
Trevor’s point earlier today, all I’ve seen in a link to a PDF file, but not an
actual specification for the file. Thanks, -Mark
From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org [mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of
Georg Kunz via Lists.Opnfv.Org
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 13:43
To: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org
Subject: [opnfv-tech-discuss][opnfv-tsc] Airship and PDF
Hi all,
I wanted to kick-off the email discussion around the wording and additional
input for next week’s vote on a potential exemption from the requirement to
utilize a Pod Descriptor File for the Airship project.
Besides kicking off the wordsmithing process, I’d also like to direct a request
to the Airship team to compile input for the TSC. As I mentioned on the TSC
call, I’d like to prioritize value over former governance decisions, but want
to be able to better understand the context of our decision. So, in line with
other exemption requests and without attempting to add an overly huge burden on
the Airship team, I’d like to ask the Airship project to describe…
the technical challenges of using the PDF for Airship. It has been stated that
there are gaps / missing information in the PDF making it hardly suitable for
Airship. I’d like to understand the challenges and the effort needed to make
this work.
a firm plan on how to evolve Airship and the PDF (where needed) to make both go
together in the Jerma release.
Assuming those aspects will be addressed, I’d like to propose the following
vote text:
“Does the TSC exempt the Airship project from utilizing the Pod Descriptor File
for the Iruya release based on a documented plan for supporting the PDF in the
Jerma release?”
Feedback and input is welcome.
Best regards
Georg
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#23746):
https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23746
Mute This Topic: https://lists.opnfv.org/mt/61965023/21656
Group Owner: opnfv-tech-discuss+ow...@lists.opnfv.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
