15:30:14 <anipbu> #startmeeting beryllium release review 15:30:14 <odl_meetbot> Meeting started Fri Feb 12 15:30:14 2016 UTC. The chair is anipbu. Information about MeetBot at http://ci.openstack.org/meetbot.html. 15:30:14 <odl_meetbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote. 15:30:14 <odl_meetbot> The meeting name has been set to 'beryllium_release_review' 15:30:18 <anipbu> #topic roll call 15:30:25 <anipbu> #info PTL and TSC members please #info in 15:30:25 <colindixon> #info colindixon for TTP, docs, and TSC 15:30:32 <anipbu> #info anipbu 15:31:07 <vjanandr> #info vjanandr for SNBI 15:31:32 <anipbu> Okay Let's get started 15:31:36 <anipbu> #topic SNBI 15:31:43 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNBI_Berrylium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 15:31:48 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SecureNetworkBootstrapping:BerylliumReleaseReview <-- Release Review 15:32:05 <anipbu> #info Vijay Anand R is representing SNBI 15:32:06 <vjanandr> https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/34063/ asciidoc 15:32:17 <anipbu> vjanandr: anything you would like to add? 15:32:27 <colindixon> does it require Java 7 or does it also work with Java 8 15:32:28 <colindixon> ? 15:32:34 <anipbu> vjanandr: are there any features you would like to mark as experimental? 15:32:37 <colindixon> oh, it says or above 15:32:42 <vjanandr> works with java7 and java8 15:32:55 <anipbu> vjanandr: have you tested against RC2 artifacts and were there any blocking issues? 15:33:05 <vjanandr> SNBI would be an experimental release for Beryllium 15:33:17 <vjanandr> I am yet to verify with RC2 15:33:23 <colindixon> "It is expected to finish the forwarding element coding and then interoperate with the controller in Beryllium release." did you finish it? 15:33:35 <vjanandr> yes this is done 15:33:43 <anipbu> #info SNBI would be an experimental release for Beryllium 15:33:50 <colindixon> #action vjanandr to not that "It is expected to finish the forwarding element coding and then interoperate with the controller in Beryllium release." was actually done in the release notes 15:33:56 <aleckey> #info aleckey for NetIDE 15:34:08 <colindixon> vjanandr: is migration supported, is it compatible with older versions? it looks like no 15:34:20 <vjanandr> no its not compatible with older version 15:34:27 <vjanandr> I have captured the change in the release note 15:34:28 <anipbu> #action vjanandr to verify against RC 15:34:51 <anipbu> vjanandr: what are the user facing features? 15:35:01 <vjanandr> SNBI registrar 15:35:05 <colindixon> #link https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/34063/ patch for docs for Beryllium 15:35:25 <anipbu> #info user facing features: SNBI registrar 15:35:47 <phrobb> vjanandr The release review says this is the first release of SNBI. That is not the case right? Could you fix that? 15:35:59 <colindixon> vjanandr: it looks like you need to copy the EoL stuff from release notes to release review instead of saying it's the first release 15:36:02 <kalai> #info kalai for LACP 15:36:03 <vjanandr> yes this is not.. let me fix that 15:36:04 <vjanandr> thanks 15:36:08 <anipbu> vjanandr: what are the migration and capatibility issues? 15:36:34 <colindixon> #action vjanandr to note that the Be release of SNBI is not compatible with and does not support migration from the Li release on the release notes 15:36:52 <colindixon> #action vjanandr to copy EoL and deprecated things from the release notes to the release review for SNBI 15:37:02 <vjanandr> previous release used to support neighbor discovery on the registrar/controller.. 15:37:02 <LuisGomez1> #LuisGomez1 15:37:10 <LuisGomez1> #info LuisGomez1 15:37:10 <vjanandr> this has been moved to the ForwardingElement 15:37:24 <anipbu> vjanandr: is your features in the distribution test features xml? 15:37:32 <colindixon> vjanandr: "No blocking issues identified as yet." probably makes sense just to drop that 15:37:42 <vjanandr> yes.. 15:37:43 <vjanandr> ok 15:37:44 <vjanandr> will do 15:37:48 <anipbu> #chair colindixon LuisGomez1 15:37:48 <odl_meetbot> Current chairs: LuisGomez1 anipbu colindixon 15:37:57 <anipbu> #chair phrobb 15:37:57 <odl_meetbot> Current chairs: LuisGomez1 anipbu colindixon phrobb 15:38:50 <anipbu> vjanandr: any CSIT? 15:38:56 <vjanandr> I am working on the CSIT... 15:39:01 <vjanandr> I am not yet done with it 15:39:22 <anipbu> #action vjanandr to complete CSIT for SNBI 15:39:47 <anipbu> vjanandr: what are the migration and capatibility issues? 15:40:01 <vjanandr> I have captured that in the release not.. 15:40:27 <vjanandr> The controller no longer supports neighbour discovery, only the registrar functionality is supported on the controller. 15:40:41 <vjanandr> previous release dint support the Forwarding Element Agent 15:40:57 <vjanandr> this is the first release that brings both together 15:41:27 <vjanandr> so I guess there shouldn't be a migration issue ? 15:41:52 <colindixon> vjanandr: I'll take your word for whatever you say, but make sure it's there and if you haven't tested it yet, say that 15:42:01 <anipbu> The release notes has migration and captaibility sections empty 15:42:15 <vjanandr> I have not tested with previous release.. 15:42:28 <vjanandr> let me do that and I will capture that in the release note... 15:42:50 <vjanandr> I will update that section 15:43:41 <anipbu> Does SNBI have a test plan? 15:43:50 <vjanandr> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNBI_Berrylium_Test_plan 15:44:11 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/SNBI_Berrylium_Test_plan <-- SNBI System test plan 15:44:20 <anipbu> SNBI looks good to me 15:44:41 <LuisGomez1> vjanandr, would you consider your feature experimental at this moment? 15:44:47 <vjanandr> yes.. 15:45:00 <vjanandr> SNBI would be an experimental feature for this release 15:45:01 <LuisGomez1> ok, i am good too 15:45:38 <anipbu> colindixon: phrobb: any additional comments? 15:45:55 <phrobb> No nothing else from me 15:46:40 <anipbu> Okay's Let's move on 15:46:51 <anipbu> congrats snbi 15:47:02 <vjanandr> thanks 15:47:26 <colindixon> I'm good if the actions above happen 15:47:33 <anipbu> Unfortunately Keith Burns will not be joining us today for GROUPBASEDPOLICY, so we will reschedule 15:47:38 <anipbu> #topic IOTDM (IoT Data Management) 15:47:43 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Iotdm:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 15:47:48 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Iotdm:_Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 15:47:53 <anipbu> #info Lionel Florit will be representing IOTDM 15:48:05 <lflorit> Hello 15:48:08 <anipbu> lflorit: anything you would like to add? 15:48:17 <lflorit> no 15:48:21 <anipbu> Are IOTDM's features experimental? 15:48:37 <anipbu> lflorit: Are IOTDM's features experimental? 15:49:02 <colindixon> lflorit: you're missing the compatibility, migration, etc. sections for releases after the first 15:49:16 <anipbu> lflorit: have you tested against RC artifacts and were there any blocking issues? 15:49:28 <lflorit> no blocking issues 15:49:33 <anipbu> lflorit: what are the user facing features of IOTDM? 15:49:39 <colindixon> #action lflorit to complete the subsections under "Changes Since Previous Releases" from here: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Sample_Release_Notes 15:49:46 <anipbu> #info IOTDM has test against RC and no blocking issues 15:49:55 <lflorit> all features have been tested 15:50:03 <lflorit> some manually 15:50:09 <lflorit> most with robot 15:50:13 <colindixon> lflorit: are there updated asciidocs for Beryllium 15:50:24 <lflorit> no 15:50:46 <colindixon> lflorit: should there be, has anything changed? 15:50:51 <anipbu> I believe this is IOTDM's second release (first introduced in Lithium). So should there be a section on migration/captability with previous release? 15:51:03 <colindixon> anipbu: I got that above 15:51:04 <anipbu> nevermind, colindixon already asked 15:51:07 <lflorit> No we have fixed the format of the specification that has been changing under us 15:51:15 <LuisGomez1> it looks like most csit tests are failing for Beryllium: https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/iotdm/job/iotdm-csit-1node-basic-only-beryllium/ 15:51:20 <lflorit> but nothing has change in terms of how you use IoTDM 15:51:25 <lflorit> from the previous release 15:51:33 <anipbu> lflorit: Are IOTDM's features experimental? 15:51:38 <colindixon> anipbu, florinc: do you know if it's compatible with Li and/or if you can migrate from Li to Be with it? 15:51:48 <lflorit> I'm sorry I'm not sure what that means "experimental" 15:52:08 <anipbu> I mean, would like to voluntarily mark iotdm features as experimental. 15:52:43 <colindixon> lflorit: basically, if you don't think that somebody should try to use it in production 15:52:53 <colindixon> I think that's pretty much been the bar 15:52:57 <lflorit> no they can use it 15:53:30 <anipbu> #info iotdm features can be used in production 15:53:36 <anipbu> do you have a system test plan for iotdm? 15:54:13 <lflorit> we have Python scripts 15:54:14 <colindixon> anipbu: I'm happy at this point assuming we got an answer about user-facing feaures 15:54:19 <LuisGomez1> lflorit, is it normal most csit are failing? 15:54:50 <anipbu> I mean, does iotdm have this template filled out https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/CrossProject:Integration_Group:Feature_Integration_System_Test_Template 15:54:55 <LuisGomez1> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/iotdm/job/iotdm-csit-1node-basic-only-beryllium/ 15:55:28 <lflorit> I don't think we do 15:55:36 <anipbu> lflorit: what are the user facing features of IOTDM? 15:55:57 <anipbu> #action lflorit to provide system test plan template for iotdm https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/CrossProject:Integration_Group:Feature_Integration_System_Test_Template 15:55:58 <lflorit> the oneM2M API 15:56:10 <anipbu> #info user facing features of iotdm: the oneM2M API 15:56:18 <anipbu> iotdm looks good to me 15:56:34 * colindixon is going to be distracted starting at 11:15, but I'll try to chime in when I can 15:56:39 <anipbu> LuisGomez1: phrobb: any additional comments? 15:56:50 <LuisGomez1> i have not got an answer for the failing csit tests 15:56:57 <phrobb> None from me anipbu 15:57:05 <colindixon> I want to see LuisGomez1 get his answer 15:57:20 <lflorit> I need to get back to you on this one 15:57:41 <colindixon> #info lflorit says that the docs haven't changed from Li, but that was intentional 15:58:07 <anipbu> #action lflorit to get back to why most csit are failing 15:58:14 <lflorit> ok 15:58:22 <anipbu> #info https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/iotdm/job/iotdm-csit-1node-basic-only-beryllium/ <-- lflorit to get back to why most csit are failing 15:58:56 <colindixon> #action lflorit to follow up with anipbu and LuisGomez1 about why csit tests are faiing for IoTDM 15:58:57 <LuisGomez1> lflorit, have you tested iotdm manually? 15:59:12 <lflorit> yes for MQTT 15:59:24 <lflorit> python robot for others 16:00:05 <LuisGomez1> python robot you mean csit or your own pybot robot? 16:00:05 <lflorit> we have completed our robots test suite, we have more than 200 tests 16:00:37 <LuisGomez1> there are 195 tests failing 16:00:39 <lflorit> our own plus on Jenkins 16:00:46 <lflorit> got it 16:00:46 <LuisGomez1> ah ok 16:00:58 <LuisGomez1> ok, i am good 16:01:07 <anipbu> Okay's let's move on 16:01:11 <anipbu> congrats iotdm 16:01:15 <LuisGomez1> just the action to fix the csit 16:01:16 <anipbu> #topic LACP 16:01:35 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/LACP:Beryllium:Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:01:40 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/LACP:Beryllium:Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:01:44 <anipbu> #info Badrinath Viswanatha will be representing LACP 16:01:48 <anipbu> Badri: anything you would like to add? 16:02:05 <Badri> Kalai would also be providing details 16:02:33 <anipbu> #action lflorit: to fix the csit and to get back to LuisGomez1 regarding fix 16:02:50 <kalai> No changes in Lacp from Lithium 16:02:51 <anipbu> Kalai: anything you would like to add? 16:03:47 <kalai> clustering support alone added for LACP 16:04:09 <anipbu> kalai: are there any features you would like to mark as experimental? 16:04:35 <kalai> no 16:04:44 <anipbu> #info no experimental features in lacp 16:04:49 <kalai> we already have documentation and csit job for lacp 16:04:52 <anipbu> kalai: what the user facing features? 16:05:02 <kalai> odl-lacp-ui 16:05:10 <kalai> odl-lacp-rest, odl-lacp-plugin 16:05:23 <anipbu> #info odl-lacp-ui odl-lacp-rest, odl-lacp-plugin are user facing features in LACP 16:05:44 <anipbu> kalai: have you tested against RC and were there any blockers? 16:05:54 <kalai> we have tested with RC2.2 16:06:00 <kalai> no blockers for LACP 16:06:12 <anipbu> #info LACP has tested against RC with no blockers 16:06:23 <LuisGomez1> kalai, csit jobs are failing: https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/lacp/job/lacp-csit-1node-lacp-only-beryllium/ 16:06:31 <LuisGomez1> any idea why? 16:06:44 <kalai> no 16:06:52 <kalai> but we have csit jobs passing on sandbox 16:07:03 <kalai> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/sandbox/job/lacp-csit-1node-lacp-all-stable-lithium/ 16:07:14 <LuisGomez1> so it is test issue not controller issue? 16:07:34 <anipbu> #chair anipbu2 16:07:34 <odl_meetbot> Current chairs: LuisGomez1 anipbu anipbu2 colindixon phrobb 16:08:00 <LuisGomez1> same test passes in sandbox and not in relent? 16:08:07 <kalai> we had some issues regarding mininet hosts not sending pdus 16:08:10 <LuisGomez1> releng 16:08:16 <kalai> so we went for sandbox environment 16:08:32 <kalai> yes 16:08:45 <kalai> #luis yes 16:08:52 <LuisGomez1> ok, please follow up with int/test team to fix your test in releng 16:09:04 <kalai> ok 16:09:11 <LuisGomez1> i am good with lacp 16:09:20 <anipbu> #action kalai to follow up with int/test team to fix test in releng 16:09:34 <anipbu> kalai: do you have any pending docs patch? 16:09:53 <kalai> no documents are already updated 16:10:09 <phrobb> kalai given nothing has changed for Li to Be I assume there are no migration issues. Would you mind confirming that? 16:10:15 <kalai> yes 16:10:20 <kalai> no migration issues 16:10:24 <phrobb> thanks 16:10:30 <anipbu> #info no migration issues in LACP 16:10:37 <anipbu> lacp looks good to me 16:10:45 <anipbu> phrobb: any additional comments? 16:10:47 <phrobb> no more questions from me 16:10:52 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on 16:10:59 <anipbu> congrats lacp 16:11:14 <anipbu> #topic NETIDE 16:11:19 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/NetIDE:Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:11:28 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/NetIDE:Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:11:40 <anipbu> #info Alec Leckey will be representing NETIDE 16:11:47 <aleckey> Good morning all 16:11:52 <anipbu> aleckey: anything you would like to add? 16:12:03 <anipbu> aleckey: would you like to mark any of your features as experimental? 16:12:06 <aleckey> We tested with RC2 (vanilla) at start of this week. Only 1 x minor bug found, logged and fixed 16:12:30 <anipbu> #info NETIDE has tested against RC and found one minot bug (logged and fixed) 16:12:34 <anipbu> any blockers? 16:12:42 <aleckey> I don't think we're experimental, as we do have a system test in place (not automated) 16:12:55 <anipbu> #info NETIDE has no blocking issues from testing 16:13:14 <anipbu> #info netide has no experimental features 16:13:35 <anipbu> aleckey: are there any user facing features in netide? 16:13:48 <aleckey> odl-netide-rest 16:14:07 <anipbu> #info odl-netide-rest is user facing features of netide 16:14:40 <LuisGomez1> aleckey, you call system test 1 test case doing 1 rest call to a generic controller url? 16:14:42 <LuisGomez1> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/netide/job/netide-csit-1node-basic-only-beryllium/ 16:14:45 <phrobb> aleckey: Do you have plans to put your docs in adoc so that we can add them to the PDF versions of the user guide, dev guide etc? 16:14:51 <LuisGomez1> or you have other system tests? 16:15:04 <aleckey> Manual external system testing was performed using the following test plan: https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/NetIDE:Beryllium:System_Test 16:15:12 <aleckey> I do have a pending patch in Docs from M4 (our Developer/Userguides). Could I get someone to merge? https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/30562/ 16:15:14 <LuisGomez1> ah ok 16:15:21 <anipbu> #info this is netide first release, so no migration issues 16:15:43 <anipbu> #link https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/30562/ <-- pending docs patch 16:15:43 <phrobb> Yes colindixon is a bit backlogged on docs merges. 16:16:03 <aleckey> We have versions of userguide/dev guide on our project wiki page 16:16:09 <aleckey> also 16:16:09 <phrobb> #action colindixon to review/merge docs patch(es) for NetIDE 16:16:47 <LuisGomez1> aleckey, any plan to automate the manual system test soon? 16:17:18 <aleckey> ideally, the manual system test will be converted to ROBOT. As soon as we can... 16:17:30 <LuisGomez1> thanks 16:18:04 <phrobb> I don't have any other questions for aleckey 16:18:05 <LuisGomez1> i am good with netide 16:19:17 <anipbu> netide looks good to me as well 16:19:47 <anipbu> #info the manual system test will be converted to ROBOT as soon as possibel 16:19:53 <anipbu> Let's move on 16:19:57 <anipbu> congrats netide 16:20:03 <aleckey> Thanks guys 16:20:10 <anipbu> #topic NIC 16:20:16 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Network_Intent_Composition:Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:20:25 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Network_Intent_Composition:Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:20:38 <anipbu> #info Raphael Amorim is representing NIC 16:20:45 <raphaelamorim> here 16:20:51 <anipbu> raphaelamorim: anything you would like to add? 16:21:04 <raphaelamorim> just about documentation 16:21:24 <anipbu> raphaelamorim: have you tested against RC and were there any blockers? 16:21:25 <raphaelamorim> there's a lot of information on the wiki that is not on ascii 16:21:45 <raphaelamorim> no test blockers, but there's this patch https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/33932/ 16:21:53 <anipbu> when can those information be moved from wiki to ascidocs? 16:21:57 <raphaelamorim> from openstack nbi that might cause issues 16:22:08 <raphaelamorim> I think today 16:22:16 <raphaelamorim> I can provide a patch 16:22:26 <phrobb> raphaelamorim That was going to be my first question on Docs. Can you get that information into adoc so that we can put it in the proper PDF guides?... that's where we are going to point all the users for Be docs 16:22:37 <raphaelamorim> around 3-4 pm 16:22:49 <anipbu> #info NIC tested on RC and no blockers 16:23:10 <raphaelamorim> hi phrobb that's the idea 16:23:29 <phrobb> Great, thanks raphaelamorim. 16:23:57 <anipbu> #action raphaelamorim: get information on wiki into adoc so that we can put it in the proper PDF guides 16:23:58 <phrobb> #action raphaelamorim and NIC team to get all docs on wiki into adoc prior to Be Release 16:24:09 <phrobb> anipbu :-) 16:24:21 <LuisGomez1> csit looks very short today, any plan to extend the system test? 16:24:30 <raphaelamorim> thanks I'll focus on that 16:25:12 <raphaelamorim> carmen kelling is working on adding more tests. He was working on adding other use cases. 16:25:17 <anipbu> raphaelamorim: this is NIC's second release, as it was in Lithium. Do you have a section on "Changes Since Previous Releases" 16:25:21 <phrobb> raphaelamorim Can you list NIC's user-facing features please? 16:25:54 <raphaelamorim> odl-nic-console 16:26:18 <anipbu> #info user facing features for nic: odl-nic-console 16:26:55 <raphaelamorim> odl-nic-core-service-mdsal 16:26:58 <raphaelamorim> odl-nic-core-service-hazelcast 16:27:29 <raphaelamorim> sorry, those got refactory recently 16:27:41 <phrobb> raphaelamorim, rephrasing anipbu's question: Are there any migration concerns/issues we need to make users aware of in the release notes as they go from Li to Be? 16:27:46 <raphaelamorim> so, those last 2 install nbi's 16:28:19 <anipbu> #undo 16:28:19 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x20d3250> 16:28:20 <raphaelamorim> Li release is a very experimental one, so I would say no problems. 16:28:37 <anipbu> #info user facing features for nic: odl-nic-console odl-nic-core-service-mdsal odl-nic-core-service-hazelcast 16:28:52 <LuisGomez1> are any of these features experimental? 16:29:18 <raphaelamorim> we're still an experimental project :D 16:29:36 <LuisGomez1> ok, that answers :) 16:30:11 <anipbu> #info all NIC features are considered experimental (NIC is still an experimental project) 16:30:29 <phrobb> raphaelamorim so you suggest that users continue to use NIC for PoC/lab types of activities in the Be release? 16:30:46 <raphaelamorim> phrobb: yes 16:30:54 <anipbu> #action raphaelamorim to update the sections on migration concerns/issues 16:30:58 <LuisGomez1> i am good with nic 16:31:13 <anipbu> raphaelamorim: even so, you should still state that there are no migration issues on the release notes 16:31:15 <phrobb> No more questions from me 16:31:22 <phrobb> thanks raphaelamorim! 16:31:27 <raphaelamorim> thanks 16:31:32 <anipbu> nic looks fine to me 16:31:37 <anipbu> Let's move on 16:31:41 <anipbu> congrats nic 16:31:47 <anipbu> #topic PACKETCABLE (PacketCable PCMM/COPS) 16:31:51 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/PacketCablePCMM:BerylliumReleaseReview <-- Release Review 16:31:56 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/PacketCablePCMM:BerylliumReleaseNotes <-- Release Notes 16:32:00 <anipbu> #info Kevin Kershaw is representing PACKETCABLE 16:32:13 <kkershaw> present - also Ryan Vail is joining me 16:32:17 <anipbu> kkershaw: anything you would like to add? 16:32:33 <kkershaw> No. Any questions from the review team? 16:33:06 <anipbu> kkershaw: 1) Have you tested against RC and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:33:46 <kkershaw> We tested against RC2.1 - Ryan can confirm. We have not tested RC beyond that 16:34:06 <anipbu> any blockers found? 16:34:22 <rvail> None 16:34:22 <kkershaw> We have one user-facing feature: odl-packetcable-policy-server 16:34:45 <anipbu> #info packetcable tested against RC and no blockers found 16:34:45 <kkershaw> It is not considered experimental I think 16:35:01 <anipbu> can it be used in production? 16:35:11 <anipbu> #info have one user-facing feature: odl-packetcable-policy-server 16:35:48 <kkershaw> The provisioning model that it supports is not a full replacement for existing production systems so while it could be used in production 16:36:04 <kkershaw> it is probably not sufficient for all use cases 16:36:15 <anipbu> #info packetcable has no experimental features. ready for production. 16:36:31 <phrobb> kkershaw Do you have the documentation for PCMM in adoc so that it will be put into the proper PDF user/dev guides? 16:37:05 <kkershaw> I think this is perhaps a weakness on our part. We have more doc in the wiki that is not found in the adocs 16:38:30 <phrobb> kkershaw Would it be possible to get it into Adoc for the Be release? That's where we're pointing all the end users for docs... as we know from history that users aren't finding the docs when they are scattered 16:39:16 <anipbu> #action kkershaw to get wiki docs into Adoc for the Be release 16:39:27 <kkershaw> It would be possible. I need to find a resource here at Cablelabs for that work although I think it's not too great. What is the deadline we would need to meet? 16:39:31 <anipbu> kkershaw: do you have any migration issues? 16:39:48 <anipbu> kkershaw: try to get docs in as soon as possible 16:40:12 <phrobb> kkershaw we're trying to have solid docs for release next Thursday (2/18) 16:40:15 <kkershaw> anipbu - yes, there is a backward's compatibility issue in the REST APIs. This is documented in the release notes, I believe. 16:40:55 <kkershaw> phrobb - OK - I think we can get our docs in shape before then. Thanks. 16:41:04 <phrobb> Thanks kkershaw ! 16:41:36 <anipbu> kkershaw: in addition to compatibility issues, we should mention that migration will be a problem for users on Li moving to Be if that is the case 16:41:50 <phrobb> did we get system test questions answered? 16:41:58 <LuisGomez1> i see this project has no csit, did it get a waiver? 16:42:16 <kkershaw> We have CSIT - I believe. 16:42:43 <LuisGomez1> ih yes 16:42:43 <anipbu> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/packetcable/job/packetcable-csit-1node-pcmm-all-beryllium/ 16:42:48 <kkershaw> #link https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/packetcable/job/packetcable-csit-1node-pcmm-all-beryllium/ 16:43:05 <LuisGomez1> right, i neglected it 16:43:25 <phrobb> I have no more questions 16:43:31 <kkershaw> ...and we will add migration info to our adocs 16:43:32 <anipbu> LuisGomez1: the integration matrix may also https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hci5TMUPyB6PX8Al-fwfVqvs5SQVa2wZLja_7rKWN6o/edit#gid=1401406837 16:43:38 <anipbu> packetcable looks good to me 16:43:43 <LuisGomez1> thanks anipbu 16:43:52 <LuisGomez1> i am good with packetcable 16:44:07 <kkershaw> OK thanks very much to all of you. Enjoy your weekend. 16:44:15 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on 16:44:19 <anipbu> congrats packetcable 16:44:26 <anipbu> #topic VPNSERVICE 16:44:30 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Vpnservice:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:44:35 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Vpnservice:Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:44:40 <anipbu> #info Prem Sankar will be representing VPNSERVICE 16:44:45 <anipbu> Prem_: anything you would like to add 16:45:07 <Prem_> This was an important release for VPNService 16:45:24 <Prem_> This is also getting upstreamed to OPNFV as part of SDNVPN 16:45:24 <LuisGomez1> why so? 16:45:34 <LuisGomez1> cool 16:45:46 <anipbu> Prem_: 1) Have you tested against RC and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:46:16 <Prem_> Yes, we have tested with all RCs and no blockers 16:46:43 <Prem_> ELAN can be called as experimental. This was not in original scope 16:46:55 <Prem_> odl-vpnservice-core is the main user-facing feature 16:47:22 <Prem_> we also have odl-vpnservice-openstack - for Openstack BGPVPN integration 16:47:42 <phrobb> Prem_ Your "Known Issues" section of the release notes seems ot still have the boiler plate info 16:48:04 <anipbu> #info spnservice has tested against RC and no blockers found 16:48:14 <Prem_> sorry, we have 2 more defects that are open 16:48:25 <Prem_> analysis is going on and hence have not updated it 16:48:32 <anipbu> #info ELAN is experimental features 16:48:42 <anipbu> #info odl-vpnservice-core is the main user-facing feature 16:48:55 <anipbu> #undo 16:48:55 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x1fd3990> 16:48:56 <Prem_> will update if these 2 bugs are not addressed 16:49:15 <anipbu> info user facing features: odl-vpnservice-core odl-vpnservice-openstack 16:49:25 <LuisGomez1> Prem_ some csit tests are failing, do you know why? 16:49:27 <LuisGomez1> https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/vpnservice/job/vpnservice-csit-1node-vpnservice-only-beryllium/ 16:49:29 <Prem_> Yes 16:49:48 <phrobb> Prem_ Also, the "Migration from Previous Releases" and "Compatibility with Previous Releases" section fo the Release Notes would benefit with a bit more explanation that just "Yes". :-) 16:49:52 <Prem_> Sorry, that is a weak area 16:49:59 <anipbu> Prem_: the two open defects are NOT blockers. Is that correct? 16:50:12 <Prem_> We have just raised another patch with new set of test cases 16:50:24 <Prem_> once this is in - we will have these addressed 16:50:44 <LuisGomez1> thanks 16:50:51 <Prem_> we were doing good in System test with respect to Li, but had a bit of setback in Be :( 16:51:00 <phrobb> #action Prem_ to review/update the Release Notes "Known Isusues", "Migration", and "Capatibilitiy" 16:51:09 <Prem_> phrobb: I will update more about that. Sure 16:51:22 <Prem_> anipbu: The are not blockers 16:51:27 <phrobb> Prem_ Thanks! 16:51:31 <anipbu> #info no blockers in VPNSERVICE 16:52:12 <Prem_> phrobb: We will also refresh the wiki pages and design doc section with more info 16:52:28 <phrobb> Prem_ are there any docs on the wiki not in the adoc? We are trying to have the adoc be the be-all, end-all for end user documentation. 16:52:29 <Prem_> phrobb: The userdoc is updated and review pending 16:52:40 <anipbu> what is teh patch id? 16:52:47 <Prem_> phrobb: They are in adoc 16:53:01 <phrobb> Excellenet Prem_ , thanks 16:53:03 <Prem_> anipbu: I had mentioned it in release review and let me pull it 16:53:25 <Prem_> 30978 16:53:27 <anipbu> #info vpnservice has pending docs https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/30978/ 16:53:40 <anipbu> Prem_: thanks 16:54:04 <Prem_> phrobb: We will also try to make a video or tutorial for this 16:54:05 <phrobb> I have no more questions 16:54:20 <LuisGomez1> vpnservice is good for me 16:54:22 <Prem_> phrobb: mostly like demo and 16:54:50 <phrobb> That would be outstanding Prem_ ! We'll take this offline, but I'd love to know if you could have something ready for the Booth at ONS :-) 16:55:14 <Prem_> phrobb: We will aim for it :) 16:55:30 <anipbu> #action Prem_ to address CSIT failures 16:55:30 <phrobb> Great! 16:56:07 <anipbu> #info VPNSERVICE have just raised another patch with new set of test cases 16:56:13 <anipbu> vpnservice looks good to me 16:56:21 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on 16:56:30 <anipbu> congrats vpnservice 16:56:58 <anipbu> OFCONFIG never responded to the meeting invite or the release review schedule 16:57:00 <Prem_> Thanks An Ho, Phil and Luiz and have a great weekend! 16:57:01 <pradeeban1> #info Pradeeban for Messaging4Transport. 16:57:08 <phrobb> Thanks Prem_ 16:57:17 <anipbu> So we will have to skip OFCONFIG and reschedule 16:57:44 <anipbu> #anipbu and Wei Meng will reschedule for OFCONFIG 16:57:51 <anipbu> #action anipbu and Wei Meng will reschedule for OFCONFIG 16:57:57 <anipbu> #topic MESSAGING4TRANSPORT 16:58:02 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Messaging4Transport:Beryllium:Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 16:58:06 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Messaging4Transport:Beryllium:Release_Review <-- Release Review 16:58:10 <anipbu> #info Pradeeban Kathiravelu is representing MESSAGING4TRANSPORT 16:58:18 <anipbu> Pradeeban: anything you would like to add? 16:58:46 <pradeeban1> anipbu, Messaging4Transport was developed as a part of OpenDaylight Summer Internship 2015. 16:58:55 <anipbu> pradeeban1: 1) Have you tested against RC and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 16:59:59 <pradeeban1> 1. There were no blockers in RC found. 2. As pointed out by Luiz in an email, probably Messaging4Transport should be considered experimental, since it lacks complete external system tests. 3. User facing features is, odl-messaging4transport 17:00:33 <anipbu> #info Messaging4Transport tested against RC and found no blockers 17:00:51 <anipbu> #info all Messaging4Transport features are considered experimental 17:00:58 <phrobb> pradeeban1 Do you have your documentation in adoc format as well as on the wiki? If not, can you put it there? 17:01:14 <anipbu> #info user facing features in Messaging4Transport: odl-messaging4transport 17:01:30 <pradeeban1> yes, of course. However, the patch was never merged. I have already sent an email to the documentation team. Let me get the patch ID. 17:02:14 <anipbu> what is the patch ID? 17:02:18 <pradeeban1> https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/30724/ 17:02:29 <LuisGomez1> i am good with this feature as experimental 17:02:32 <phrobb> pradeeban1 Great, thanks. Our docs committer list is a bit short at the moment (aka Colin Dixon). I know he's looking to get many reviews/merges done asap 17:02:56 <pradeeban1> There are a few other wiki pages listed from https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Messaging4Transport:Main as well 17:03:25 <phrobb> Do you feel you have all end-user-relevant docs in adoc? 17:03:27 <pradeeban1> For example, some prototypes built extending the model of M4T - https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Messaging4Transport:Use_Cases 17:03:29 <anipbu> #info pending docs patches https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/30724/ 17:04:11 <pradeeban1> phrobb, yes, in 2 docs - user guide and installation guide 17:04:17 <pradeeban1> developer guide 17:04:47 <anipbu> #info M4T has all end-user relevant docs in adoc: in 2 docs - user guide and installation guide 17:04:51 <phrobb> Great, thanks pradeeban1 ! 17:05:15 <pradeeban1> anipbu, I meant, user guide (including installation guide) and developer guide. sorry for the confusion in wording. 17:05:24 <anipbu> #undo 17:05:24 <odl_meetbot> Removing item from minutes: <MeetBot.ircmeeting.items.Info object at 0x1eb66d0> 17:05:34 <pradeeban1> developer.adoc and user.adoc 17:05:35 <anipbu> #info M4T has all end-user relevant docs in adoc: in 2 docs - user guide and developer guide 17:05:40 <phrobb> I have no more questions. 17:05:57 <anipbu> Messaging4Transport looks good to me 17:06:04 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on 17:06:08 <anipbu> congrats messaging4Transport 17:06:09 <phrobb> Actually, one more.... 17:06:25 <pradeeban1> Thanks anipbu, phrobb, and LuisGomez1. Have a great weekend. 17:06:28 <phrobb> M4T requires Java 7, and will not work with Java 8? 17:06:34 <anipbu> pradeeban1: ^^^^ 17:06:44 <pradeeban1> phrobb, it works with java8, and tested with java8. 17:06:48 <anipbu> pradeeban1: one more question ^^^^ 17:07:02 <pradeeban1> phrobb, (it requires java7 or higher.) 17:07:09 <phrobb> Can you update the release notes to reflect that? 17:07:23 <LuisGomez1> thanks pradeeban1 17:07:31 <pradeeban1> phrobb, sure. will do. 17:07:52 <phrobb> #action pradeeban1 to update release notes to include support for Java 8 as well as 7 17:08:15 <anipbu> phrobb: any additional comments? 17:08:22 <phrobb> Now I have no more questions. thanks pradeeban1 17:08:31 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on 17:08:33 <pradeeban1> Thank you 17:08:42 <anipbu> #topic OPENFLOWPLUGIN 17:08:47 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_OpenFlow_Plugin:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 17:08:51 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpenDaylight_OpenFlow_Plugin:Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 17:08:55 <abhijitkumbhare> Yes 17:08:55 <anipbu> #info Abhijit Kumbhare is representing OPENFLOWPLUGIN 17:09:06 <anipbu> abhijitkumbhare: anything you would like to add? 17:09:28 <abhijitkumbhare> The release review template has been filled in 17:09:33 <anipbu> abhijitkumbhare: 1) Have you tested against RC and were there any blockers? 2) Do you have any features that should be considered experimental? 3) What are the user-facing features in your project? 17:09:45 <abhijitkumbhare> And at three places I have mentioned the following 17:09:59 <abhijitkumbhare> Helium design will be deprecated in Boron and projects will be asked to move to the Lithium design (target: Beryllium service release). Any new Boron development will be done on the Lithium design only. 17:10:11 <abhijitkumbhare> In the release notes and release review 17:10:24 <abhijitkumbhare> (that was what you would like to add) 17:10:47 <abhijitkumbhare> About 1 - there are no blockers currently 17:11:23 <abhijitkumbhare> About 2 - no experimental features 17:11:44 <abhijitkumbhare> About 3 - only user facing are the REST API 17:12:00 <abhijitkumbhare> for things like flow addition/deletion 17:12:16 <abhijitkumbhare> otherwise mostly an infrastructure component 17:12:27 <anipbu> #info OPENFLOWPLUGIN tested against RC and no blockers found 17:12:39 <anipbu> #info OPENFLOWPLUGIN has no experimental features 17:13:47 <anipbu> abhijitkumbhare: what the name of the user facing feature? 17:13:55 <phrobb> abhijitkumbhare For the Release Notes, Is there value in mentioning to the end user that there are two designs when all components in Be initial release only use the He design? 17:14:21 <abhijitkumbhare> I can remove that phrobb 17:14:34 <abhijitkumbhare> From the release notes 17:15:02 <abhijitkumbhare> but I think it makes sense for the release review - right? 17:15:11 <phrobb> Thanks, similarly in the Deprecated EoL section. No need to confuse the user with deprecation that will be occuring in the next release 17:15:32 <abhijitkumbhare> OK - will remove that as well 17:15:40 <phrobb> Yes, makes sense in release review (our dev internal doc) but not the release-notes - end-user-facing doc 17:16:02 <abhijitkumbhare> In that case - I can keep the list of bugs to be only the ones applicable to Helium design 17:16:23 <phrobb> Correct. It's all about not confusing the user :-) 17:16:29 <LuisGomez1> right, i agree with phrobb, we keep the plugins internal 17:16:32 <abhijitkumbhare> OK :) 17:16:40 <abhijitkumbhare> Makes sense 17:16:44 <anipbu> +1 don't confuse end users :) 17:17:20 <abhijitkumbhare> Will update the release notes to remove the info about the 2 designs 17:17:35 <anipbu> #action abhijitkumbhare to update release notes and remove the info about the 2 designs 17:17:46 <abhijitkumbhare> and keep the bugs only about the Helium design 17:18:03 <LuisGomez1> openflowpugin has functional, perf/scal, longevity and cluster csit tests in place so no questions on that area :) 17:18:11 <anipbu> #action abhijitkumbhare to update bug list to helium design 17:18:34 <phrobb> abhijitkumbhare: No migration issues at all for the user re clustering or anything else?... what they may need to do going from Li to Be? 17:18:36 <anipbu> #info openflowpugin has functional, perf/scal, longevity and cluster csit tests in place 17:19:17 <abhijitkumbhare> No migration issues - the clustering support is new 17:19:53 <phrobb> Fair enough. I have no more questions for OFPlugin, Thanks for all your work on this abhijitkumbhare 17:20:03 <anipbu> openflowplugin looks good to me 17:20:13 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on 17:20:21 <anipbu> congrats openflowplugin 17:20:43 <anipbu> #topic OPFLEX 17:20:45 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpFlex:Beryllium_Release_Notes <-- Release Notes 17:20:49 <abhijitkumbhare> thanks phrobb and anipbu 17:20:51 <anipbu> #link https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpFlex:Beryllium_Release_Review <-- Release Review 17:20:56 <anipbu> #info Rob Adams is representing OPFLEX 17:21:00 <readams> #info Tested externally against OpenStack and ACI plus unit tests in ODL build 17:21:04 <readams> #info no experimental features 17:21:09 <readams> #info no Karaf features at all 17:21:27 <anipbu> readams: thanks 17:23:00 <anipbu> #info opflex has been tested against external RC artifacts of OpFlex. No blockers found. There are no experimental features in opflex. There are no user-facing features in opflex. 17:23:29 <anipbu> Do you have link to external RC artifacts you have been testing? 17:23:48 <readams> They're the ones in the latest Be merge task 17:24:11 <readams> Currently all we can build using ODL infra are the source tarballs 17:24:37 <anipbu> #info Tested externally against OpenStack and ACI plus unit tests in ODL build. opflex system test plan https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/OpFlex:Beryllium_Feature_Integration_System_Test 17:25:08 <anipbu> #info opflex RC artifacts are located in latest Be merge task 17:26:00 <anipbu> readams: do you have any pending docs patches? 17:26:08 <readams> none pending no 17:26:17 <readams> actually I don't think there were any docs changes this cycle 17:26:50 <LuisGomez1> so i guess we will have link the tar balls in the release page. was this the case last release? 17:27:11 <readams> Last release we put them in as gz artifacts in maven 17:27:28 <readams> Not that this adds a ton of value for anyone, but at least they're archived permanently 17:28:03 <anipbu> readams: we should do the same thing for this release as well 17:28:52 <readams> It's possible to build RPM and DEB packages for Ubuntu 14.04 and RHEL 7 directly from those source tarballs. 17:28:57 <anipbu> LuisGomez1: I *hope* that we can get opflex and nextuitoolkit to upload their final release artifacts to nexus before the release next week. 17:29:27 <LuisGomez1> ok 17:29:55 <phrobb> readams is there anyplace in the docs that tell the user where to get the OpFlex .gz file?.. I'm not finding it in the "getting started" guide 17:30:36 <readams> Um, I don't think so. Honestly the hidden previous step to "getting started" is probably "talk to Rob and he'll give you binary packages" :-) 17:31:22 <phrobb> Can we get something in there pointing to the artifact?... or a link to your email address ;-) 17:31:29 <readams> Though the build guide can be used with the tarballs 17:32:17 <readams> We can try. Not sure if I know where the released artifacts final location will be 17:32:49 <readams> Probably it would go in the dev guide rather than the getting started guide? 17:33:44 <anipbu> #action readams to work with anipbu and zxiiro to upload the final release artifacts for opflex into some public location, such as nexus, etc. 17:34:27 <phrobb> readams If you are an end user just wanting to "use" OpFlex in your environemnt (ie you already have apps that take advantage of it), how would you contstuct an ODL/OpFlex config to do that?... that would be the question I think 17:34:54 <readams> I think that much is covered in the docs 17:35:16 <readams> The default config file itself is also heavily commented 17:36:06 <phrobb> Sounds good readams . Just want to make sure the user can get what they need. 17:36:25 <phrobb> I've got no more questions. Thanks readams ! 17:36:30 <anipbu> opflex looks good to me 17:36:43 <anipbu> LuisGomez1: any additional comments? 17:37:02 <LuisGomez1> since this project does not run in ODL controller, i do not have integration questions :) 17:37:14 <anipbu> Okay Let's move on. 17:37:18 <readams> Thanks, folks! 17:37:18 <anipbu> congrats opflex 17:37:25 <anipbu> that's all the projects we have today 17:37:28 <anipbu> so we're done 17:37:49 <anipbu> thanks phrobb LuisGomez1 colindixon 17:37:50 <phrobb> Yep, thanks anipbu and LuisGomez1 for all the great questions 17:38:01 <anipbu> #topic cookies 17:38:16 <LuisGomez1> thanks 17:38:18 <anipbu> #endmeeting