Hi Al, Mark, Fu Qiao, all, thank you for the feedback and input to the discussion. I agree with Al’s proposal for the updated vote text and Fu Qiao’s proposal to keep the PDF discussion going in the corresponding PRs in preparation for the plugfest in January.
Best regards Georg From: MORTON, ALFRED C (AL) <a...@research.att.com> Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2019 10:49 AM To: Fu Qiao <fuq...@chinamobile.com>; Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-tsc <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> Subject: RE: [opnfv-tech-discuss][opnfv-tsc] Airship and PDF Hi Georg, Mark, Fu Qiao, and all, Thanks for this discussion – it has helped me to better understand where we are, through references and work in progress. With this in mind, I suggest a small edit to Georg’s proposed text for the vote: “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 current (possibly evolved) PDF in the Jerma release?” I realize that this may give all installer projects (especially Airship) a moving target for the Jerma Release, including any new installer projects. But the opinions expressed so far IMO indicate that there is value in an evolved PDF (and I agree), making agreement on the evolution time-sensitive. So, we may need to add some delivery dates for any evolved PDF and Airship’s plan with this proposed question to TSC, and perhaps we simply note a week or so to set the dates if that’s the consensus. regards, Al From: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> [mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org] On Behalf Of Fu Qiao Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 12:00 AM To: mark.shos...@att.com<mailto:mark.shos...@att.com>; georg.kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>>; Baker <jba...@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:jba...@linuxfoundation.org>> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss <opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>>; opnfv-tsc <opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org>> Subject: Re: [opnfv-tech-discuss][opnfv-tsc] Airship and PDF 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_cntt-2Dn_CNTT_pull_535&d=DwQFaQ&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=OfsSu8kTIltVyD1oL72cBw&m=9J6BhZb8mWffowoTFfhEzFTJ9bbA1O7efTmSQd3wN-Y&s=GTGmU8BZbjns3IC16wfHGxYvZ8oyPIubBC53Qd7Wo6c&e=>. 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<mailto:mark.shos...@att.com> Date: 2019-11-27 10:53 To: Georg Kunz<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>; Jim Baker<mailto:jba...@linuxfoundation.org> CC: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto: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<mailto:ms7...@att.com>> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_opnfv_pharos_tree_master_config_pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=mb4TI-s0r6iW8eaVypiejw&m=koOAoMGlfEpIcAilGbOVtGPe7c82e8fRvqy2nN2wPBQ&s=xPpQ9kcBTaLNSVcXg6SxJ-2MTdK4MFYqBamM8W8uBQM&e=> [2] https://github.com/opnfv/pharos/tree/master/labs<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_opnfv_pharos_tree_master_labs&d=DwMFAg&c=LFYZ-o9_HUMeMTSQicvjIg&r=mb4TI-s0r6iW8eaVypiejw&m=koOAoMGlfEpIcAilGbOVtGPe7c82e8fRvqy2nN2wPBQ&s=wp_XhdZj2m6p1GRxH7_VQbu3eTIM8tG6FKDELhWziNU&e=> Best regards Georg From: SHOSTAK, MARK <ms7...@att.com<mailto:ms7...@att.com>> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:45 PM To: Georg Kunz <georg.k...@ericsson.com<mailto:georg.k...@ericsson.com>> Cc: opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto: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> [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<mailto:opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org>; opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto:opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org> Cc: opnfv-...@lists.opnfv.org<mailto: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… 1. 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. 2. 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 (#23750): https://lists.opnfv.org/g/opnfv-tech-discuss/message/23750 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
