You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 7 Next »

Attendees:

Please add your name in here:

  1. Kelvin Edmison (Nokia)
  2. Mark Shostak
  3. Tomas Fredberg (Ericsson)

Special Notes:

  • Given the limited time available, we will focus on identifying issues/actions/next steps, but not solving them right now
  • Weekly RM meetings are intended to
    • Identify owners for new Issues
    • Track open Issues
    • Address technical issues that cannot be resolved online (i.e. resolve stalls)

Agenda:


  • Discuss RM Specific sessions we want to have in Los Angeles - ONES LA Topics Proposals - Technical
    • Proposals/ideas due by end of week:
      • RM Deep Dive
      • consider topics that are 'below' the line' for Baldy, but need kickstarting for the next release
      • Others


  • Generic Fabric Model (GFM)
    • [RM] Networking Strategy (Issue #960)
    • The following is proposed for Baldy MVP
      • Executive Summary
        • CNTT approach to the fabric // i.e. define for flexibility in ultimate implementation
      • Initial Objectives // i.e. what we want the GFM to achieve for CNTT (and why) Ex.:
        • Provide L3 tenant networks, GWs, SDS, etc.
        • CLEANLY decouple interface/reference points between CNTT constituencies
        • Provide compatibility at demarcation/reference points
          • any RA couples to RM
          • appropriate RI couples to RA
          • Operator can create or procure a compatible fabric, etc.
        • Provide ability for any number of Operator-specific fabrics to power an RA/RI/VI
        • Enables RC's ability to realize their deliverables
        • Clearly documents responsibilities of each CNTT constituency
        • Your ideas here!
      • Provide enough mechanics for contributors to create coherent requirements
        • What are the buckets // Tech, RM, RAx, RIx, etc.
        • Examples of what goes in each bucket // Exec Summary & approach (Tech); generic/high-level requirements (RM), detailed requirements (RA), Sample imp to support RC (RI), etc.
        • Your ideas here!


  • Open questions
    • TBD


  • New Business

Actions:

  • General
    •  Document decision (flowing from #1007) about choosing Flavours over scheduler_hints
      • based on discoverability, absence of traceability from scheduler_hints option, and based on openstack recommendation link
    • Note in RM that compute flavour is parked, but don't remove it from the Reference Model entirely as we are re-adding it soon.
  •  Core
    • None at this time
  • Ops
    • None at this time
  • Comp
    • None at this time

Minutes:


  • No labels