Date   

Re: my perspective on where we are with the single controller code base issue

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

BTW, it has been pointed out that I mis-attributed the IOCTL idea to
Chris. That was my mistake. That said, the point I was making still
holds, namely, that there exist some ideas (and there will be more) to
deal with the near term deficiencies, perceived or otherwise, with the
SAL.

--dmm

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:09 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:
All,

As you know today (05.14.2013) was the day on which I wanted to
have the single controller code base issue resolved. What I had
said is that if we couldn't get the projects to agree on a way
forward that we as a TSC would vote on the issue. In the mean
time we have reached general consensus that the Dixon-Erickson
OpenDaylight Merged Controller Proposal (DE) (see
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Dixon-Erickson_OpenDaylight_Merged_Controller_Proposal).
I want to be very clear here that that plan is distinct from what
is being called Proposed Dixon-Erickson Execution Plan (see
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Proposed_Dixon-Erickson_Execution_Plan). So
from this perspective the community has come together over this
general direction. This functionally obviates the need for a
direct vote.

There have been quite a few concerns raised both publicly and to
me directly in private email. I'd like to review those here and
provide my perspective.

(i). The SAL

It is generally agreed that there is work left to be done on the
SAL, and that there may be instances in which, (in the near term)
we need a mechanism to provide a kind of "SAL bypass". Chris'
IOCTL proposal is one such idea. What I want to point out here is
the the ODP is evolving and as such we expect the architecture to
not not improve technically but converge on the needed
functionality/generality over time. This is a completely natural
state of affairs for any software project. The summary is that we
can provide short term mechanisms that bridge any perceived or
real functionality gaps in the SAL (again, Chris' IOCTL idea
might be one such mechanism). So while the OSCP folks have
argued pretty strongly against the SAL (both publicly and
privately), the DE proposal endorses the SAL concept and the
OpenDaylight Controller folks consider the SAL to be a
fundamental architectural construct. That said, evolution of the
SAL (be it the model driven approach, bypass, etc) is an issue
for folks who are writing SAL applications (committing code) to
resolve.

(ii). New Project/Repository

This issue is really about the fairness of commits to the
controller code base. This was stated explicitly to me privately
and publicly by Glenn Ricart and Guru Parulkar on the discuss
list. On the other hand, a simple majority of TSC members (and
many in the community) have expressed the opinion that they would
prefer moving forward with the plan outlined in the DE-proposal,
namely start with the OpenDaylight controller and evolve that as
needed. I will note here that there is no objective evidence that
there is a fairness issue with commits to any candiate code base
(it would hard for that to be the case in any event as we haven't
had the chance to really get going). Finally, since this is
largely a political issue it is outside of the scope of the TSC
and should be "policed" by the community.

As an aside, I will also note here that several community
members have expressed concern that the new project
approach is quite expensive and has little benefit beyond
the political/perception issue mentioned above.


(iii) Timing

The timing issue, namely that there is (is not) a rush to get the
ODP project up and running is one that has also been raised both
publicly and privately. I have been told (again, both publicly
and privately) by the OSCP (BSN) folks that they have time
pressure to port their applications to the ODP controller. That
is a principle rationale behind the Layered API proposal
(https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Layered_API_Merged_Controller_Proposal).
In addition, the same team is also arguing that we are in no rush and
in fact any date for resolving the controller issue is not only
artificial but damaging to the community; this exact sentiment was
contained in a private communication from Rob Sherwood to me dated
Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:38 AM. In the spirit of transparency I am copying the
relevant text from that email here:

"I know that in your heart you believe what you're doing is the
right thing for the community, and that's why I've held off
making a stink, but as chair, I'm not sure what you're doing is
in terms of pushing hard on this artificial deadline (that you
said originally was not set in stone but now it is) or being
opaque in terms of the actual process is really helping the
community." -- Rob Sherwood to dmm on Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:38
AM.

(this text of course also contains criticisms of me in my role
as chair to which I will return but I want to focus here on the
timing issue).

The summary here is that it has been argued by the OSCP team that
we accept their proposal
(https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/File:LayeredAPIProposal.pdf)
because there is time pressure to port applications while at the
same time it is being argued that any time frame is damaging,
artificial, or worse. On the other hand, a simple majority of the
TSC have stated publicly (on the discuss list) that resolving the
controller code base issue of primary importance and they would
like to move forward with an interpretation of DE that starts
with the existing OpenDaylight controller code base.

It is clear from these inconsistencies that the timing issue is
largely a non-issue for the ODP community at large; in addition
there is clear benefit to moving forward with the DE approach now. One
might also note here that we've made very little progress over
the last many weeks and it is time to start, now.

(iv). Finally, if anyone has problems with me personally and/or the
way TSC is being run please air those publicly on the
discuss list. I will not be responding to emails such as the one
quoted above, lobbying by private phone call, or the
like. Again, if you have complaints about the way the TSC
is being run please discuss those on the discuss or tsc lists.

Summary: It is clear that there is additional evolution that is
needed for the SAL. No one is arguing otherwise. The new
project/repository issue is really about concern that commits
won't be fair (again, both Glenn and Guru raised this); however
there is no evidence that this is or will be the case and in any
event is not a technical issue and as such is out of scope for
the TSC. Finally, the timing issue is largely a commercial issue
(the need to port applications) and also has been argued on both
sides by the same people and as such I consider those arguments
largely moot; there is a real need to get the consortium going
(hence the date) but that is a wholly different argument.

--dmm


my perspective on where we are with the single controller code base issue

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

All,

As you know today (05.14.2013) was the day on which I wanted to
have the single controller code base issue resolved. What I had
said is that if we couldn't get the projects to agree on a way
forward that we as a TSC would vote on the issue. In the mean
time we have reached general consensus that the Dixon-Erickson
OpenDaylight Merged Controller Proposal (DE) (see
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Dixon-Erickson_OpenDaylight_Merged_Controller_Proposal).
I want to be very clear here that that plan is distinct from what
is being called Proposed Dixon-Erickson Execution Plan (see
https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Proposed_Dixon-Erickson_Execution_Plan). So
from this perspective the community has come together over this
general direction. This functionally obviates the need for a
direct vote.

There have been quite a few concerns raised both publicly and to
me directly in private email. I'd like to review those here and
provide my perspective.

(i). The SAL

It is generally agreed that there is work left to be done on the
SAL, and that there may be instances in which, (in the near term)
we need a mechanism to provide a kind of "SAL bypass". Chris'
IOCTL proposal is one such idea. What I want to point out here is
the the ODP is evolving and as such we expect the architecture to
not not improve technically but converge on the needed
functionality/generality over time. This is a completely natural
state of affairs for any software project. The summary is that we
can provide short term mechanisms that bridge any perceived or
real functionality gaps in the SAL (again, Chris' IOCTL idea
might be one such mechanism). So while the OSCP folks have
argued pretty strongly against the SAL (both publicly and
privately), the DE proposal endorses the SAL concept and the
OpenDaylight Controller folks consider the SAL to be a
fundamental architectural construct. That said, evolution of the
SAL (be it the model driven approach, bypass, etc) is an issue
for folks who are writing SAL applications (committing code) to
resolve.

(ii). New Project/Repository

This issue is really about the fairness of commits to the
controller code base. This was stated explicitly to me privately
and publicly by Glenn Ricart and Guru Parulkar on the discuss
list. On the other hand, a simple majority of TSC members (and
many in the community) have expressed the opinion that they would
prefer moving forward with the plan outlined in the DE-proposal,
namely start with the OpenDaylight controller and evolve that as
needed. I will note here that there is no objective evidence that
there is a fairness issue with commits to any candiate code base
(it would hard for that to be the case in any event as we haven't
had the chance to really get going). Finally, since this is
largely a political issue it is outside of the scope of the TSC
and should be "policed" by the community.

As an aside, I will also note here that several community
members have expressed concern that the new project
approach is quite expensive and has little benefit beyond
the political/perception issue mentioned above.


(iii) Timing

The timing issue, namely that there is (is not) a rush to get the
ODP project up and running is one that has also been raised both
publicly and privately. I have been told (again, both publicly
and privately) by the OSCP (BSN) folks that they have time
pressure to port their applications to the ODP controller. That
is a principle rationale behind the Layered API proposal
(https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Layered_API_Merged_Controller_Proposal).
In addition, the same team is also arguing that we are in no rush and
in fact any date for resolving the controller issue is not only
artificial but damaging to the community; this exact sentiment was
contained in a private communication from Rob Sherwood to me dated
Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:38 AM. In the spirit of transparency I am copying the
relevant text from that email here:

"I know that in your heart you believe what you're doing is the
right thing for the community, and that's why I've held off
making a stink, but as chair, I'm not sure what you're doing is
in terms of pushing hard on this artificial deadline (that you
said originally was not set in stone but now it is) or being
opaque in terms of the actual process is really helping the
community." -- Rob Sherwood to dmm on Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:38
AM.

(this text of course also contains criticisms of me in my role
as chair to which I will return but I want to focus here on the
timing issue).

The summary here is that it has been argued by the OSCP team that
we accept their proposal
(https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/File:LayeredAPIProposal.pdf)
because there is time pressure to port applications while at the
same time it is being argued that any time frame is damaging,
artificial, or worse. On the other hand, a simple majority of the
TSC have stated publicly (on the discuss list) that resolving the
controller code base issue of primary importance and they would
like to move forward with an interpretation of DE that starts
with the existing OpenDaylight controller code base.

It is clear from these inconsistencies that the timing issue is
largely a non-issue for the ODP community at large; in addition
there is clear benefit to moving forward with the DE approach now. One
might also note here that we've made very little progress over
the last many weeks and it is time to start, now.

(iv). Finally, if anyone has problems with me personally and/or the
way TSC is being run please air those publicly on the
discuss list. I will not be responding to emails such as the one
quoted above, lobbying by private phone call, or the
like. Again, if you have complaints about the way the TSC
is being run please discuss those on the discuss or tsc lists.

Summary: It is clear that there is additional evolution that is
needed for the SAL. No one is arguing otherwise. The new
project/repository issue is really about concern that commits
won't be fair (again, both Glenn and Guru raised this); however
there is no evidence that this is or will be the case and in any
event is not a technical issue and as such is out of scope for
the TSC. Finally, the timing issue is largely a commercial issue
(the need to port applications) and also has been argued on both
sides by the same people and as such I consider those arguments
largely moot; there is a real need to get the consortium going
(hence the date) but that is a wholly different argument.

--dmm


resolving the controller project/code base issues: process going forward

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

Folks,

As TSC members will recall, I set a date of 05/13/2013 to have
proposals for the single controller project on the table, and Rob
asked a few questions about this on today's TSC call. Now, while
not created as a collaboration between Cisco and BSN, we do have
two proposals on the table: the Dixion-Erickson proposal from the ODP
community (https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Dixon-Erickson_OpenDaylight_Merged_Controller_Proposal)
and the Layered API Merged Controller Proposal from BSN
(https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Layered_API_Merged_Controller_Proposal).

The process I laid out on 04/29/2013 stated that "If no proposal
can be created by Cisco and BSN" that the TSC would vote for a
controller code base/project on 05/14/2013 in a private ballot
(see that email for details). Again, the goal here is to remove
the uncertainty around code bases that is preventing an ODP
community of developers from forming as well as preventing us from
making timely progress on the artifacts that we want to
deliver.

That said, the current state of affairs is that effectively we
have a proposal from the ODP community (the Dixon-Erickson
proposal) and a proposal from BSN. Consistent with the spirit and
intent of my email of 04/29/2013, unless clear community
consensus forms around one of these proposals before 05/14/2013,
the TSC will conduct a vote to choose one of these proposals as
the ODP controller code base/project going forward. Note that
while it is in the purview of the TSC to take such a vote, we
will vote only as a last resort.

In addition, please raise whatever questions you might have about
either proposal on the discuss list. Finally on this point,
additional information will also be provided by Rob relating to
the BSN proposal to be presented during the Technical Workstream
session on Monday, 05/13/2013, so please be sure to make that
call and have questions (if any) ready so we can make optimal use
of that time slot.

As I know you all understand but is worth reiterating here: the
uncertainty created by the lack of a single code base that
developers can start evolving and developing against is hurting
ODP, and it is our responsibility as a TSC to resolve this issue
in a timely fashion. Resolving this issue is sole intent of this
process.

Thnx,

--dmm


Re: Revised merged controller proposal

Chris Wright <chrisw@...>
 

* Rob Sherwood (rob.sherwood@...) wrote:
After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal,
we ran into a bunch of concerns. Attached is a proposal which we believe
addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my understanding
of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the
impending deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on
today's call.
No. Discuss is that way -->> discuss@...


Logistics for today's call

Phil Robb
 

Hello TSC Members:

Here is the meeting access information for today's meeting.  This is the same information currently on the wiki:

When it's time, start the meeting from here:

Agenda
This meeting does not have an agenda.

Access Information
Where: WebEx Online
Meeting number: 194 548 370

Audio Connection
1-855-244-8681 Call-in toll-free number (US/Canada)
1-650-479-3207 Call-in toll number (US/Canada)
Access code: 194 548 370

Best regards,

Phil.

--
Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions
The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb


Re: Revised merged controller proposal

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

And Rob, can you post to discuss? Thnx, --dmm

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Phil Robb <probb@...> wrote:
OK, I think the wiki is now fixed (thanks as always to Andrew Grimberg's
prompt and expert responses).

Rob, can you try to upload the Layered API proposal again?

Phil.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:37 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:

Thanks Phil. --dmm

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Phil Robb <probb@...>
wrote:
The proposal was waiting on moderator approval this morning and I
released
it to both Discuss and TSC lists a little while ago.

The wiki issue seems to be a bug I'm working on right now. The file
limit
is set to 8M and Rob's proposal pdf is only 1.1M.... so something is
wrong... I'll get the doc up on the wiki as soon as we figure it out.

Phil.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:

Actually, now I see you only sent your proposal to tsc@ (unless I
can't keep track of what is cross posted where, which has non-zero
probability). Any reason why it can't go to discuss?

--dmm


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Rob Sherwood
<rob.sherwood@...>
wrote:
After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's
proposal,
we ran into a bunch of concerns. Attached is a proposal which we
believe
addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my
understanding
of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the
impending
deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on
today's
call.

I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments
going
than
my previous merge d controller proposal.

Open to comments,

- Rob
.

_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc



--
Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions
The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb



--
Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions
The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb


Re: Revised merged controller proposal

Phil Robb
 

OK, I think the wiki is now fixed (thanks as always to Andrew Grimberg's prompt and expert responses).

Rob, can you try to upload the Layered API proposal again?

Phil.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:37 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:
Thanks Phil. --dmm

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Phil Robb <probb@...> wrote:
> The proposal was waiting on moderator approval this morning and I released
> it to both Discuss and TSC lists a little while ago.
>
> The wiki issue seems to be a bug I'm working on right now.  The file limit
> is set to 8M and Rob's proposal pdf is only 1.1M.... so something is
> wrong... I'll get the doc up on the wiki as soon as we figure it out.
>
> Phil.
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, now I see you only sent your proposal to tsc@ (unless I
>> can't keep track of what is cross posted where, which has non-zero
>> probability). Any reason why it can't go to discuss?
>>
>> --dmm
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...>
>> wrote:
>> > After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's
>> > proposal,
>> > we ran into a bunch of concerns.  Attached is a proposal which we
>> > believe
>> > addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my
>> > understanding
>> > of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.
>> >
>> > I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the
>> > impending
>> > deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on
>> > today's
>> > call.
>> >
>> > I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going
>> > than
>> > my previous merge d controller proposal.
>> >
>> > Open to comments,
>> >
>> > - Rob
>> > .
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TSC mailing list
>> > TSC@...
>> > https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> TSC mailing list
>> TSC@...
>> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>
>
>
>
> --
> Phil Robb
> Director - Networking Solutions
> The Linux Foundation
> (O) 970-229-5949
> (M) 970-420-4292
> Skype: Phil.Robb



--
Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions
The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb


Re: Revised merged controller proposal

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

Thanks Phil. --dmm

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Phil Robb <probb@...> wrote:
The proposal was waiting on moderator approval this morning and I released
it to both Discuss and TSC lists a little while ago.

The wiki issue seems to be a bug I'm working on right now. The file limit
is set to 8M and Rob's proposal pdf is only 1.1M.... so something is
wrong... I'll get the doc up on the wiki as soon as we figure it out.

Phil.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:

Actually, now I see you only sent your proposal to tsc@ (unless I
can't keep track of what is cross posted where, which has non-zero
probability). Any reason why it can't go to discuss?

--dmm


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...>
wrote:
After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's
proposal,
we ran into a bunch of concerns. Attached is a proposal which we
believe
addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my
understanding
of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the
impending
deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on
today's
call.

I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going
than
my previous merge d controller proposal.

Open to comments,

- Rob
.

_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc



--
Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions
The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb


Re: Revised merged controller proposal

Phil Robb
 

The proposal was waiting on moderator approval this morning and I released it to both Discuss and TSC lists a little while ago.

The wiki issue seems to be a bug I'm working on right now.  The file limit is set to 8M and Rob's proposal pdf is only 1.1M.... so something is wrong... I'll get the doc up on the wiki as soon as we figure it out.

Phil.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:32 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:
Actually, now I see you only sent your proposal to tsc@ (unless I
can't keep track of what is cross posted where, which has non-zero
probability). Any reason why it can't go to discuss?

--dmm


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...> wrote:
> After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal,
> we ran into a bunch of concerns.  Attached is a proposal which we believe
> addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my understanding
> of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.
>
> I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the impending
> deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on today's
> call.
>
> I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going than
> my previous merge d controller proposal.
>
> Open to comments,
>
> - Rob
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> TSC mailing list
> TSC@...
> https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc



--
Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions
The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb


Re: Revised merged controller proposal

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

Actually, now I see you only sent your proposal to tsc@ (unless I
can't keep track of what is cross posted where, which has non-zero
probability). Any reason why it can't go to discuss?

--dmm

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...> wrote:
After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal,
we ran into a bunch of concerns. Attached is a proposal which we believe
addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my understanding
of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the impending
deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on today's
call.

I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going than
my previous merge d controller proposal.

Open to comments,

- Rob
.

_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Re: Revised merged controller proposal

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:26 AM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...> wrote:
After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal,
we ran into a bunch of concerns. Attached is a proposal which we believe
addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my understanding
of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the impending
deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on today's
call.

I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going than
my previous merge d controller proposal.
BTW, I updated the agenda to give you a slot; I'm thinking now I'm
going to push everything else off so we can discuss moving forward.
Also, thank you for posting your pdf to the discuss list (as you can
see I've copied discuss into this thread). We'll work with Phil to get
the limits on the wiki changed.

Thanks again,

--dmm


Open to comments,

- Rob
.

_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] Next Hackfest Dates

Phil Robb
 

Yea, I'm online now this morning and I'll get all of this moving guys.

Phil.


On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 7:43 AM, David Meyer <dmm@...> wrote:
Rob, I see that you tried to add a pdf to the "layered API proposal" that didn't make it (looks like size limitations). Can you work with Phil to get this posted?

Thnx,

--dmm


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Apologies if I've been slow to reply, but it's been because I've been heads down reading code and meeting with our top engineers discussing the proposal.  Colin and Dave have done a great job throwing together something that looks good on paper, but given that BSN is going to bet the entire company on this project, it's important that we really drive down to a fine level of detail to convince ourselves that this makes sense and is feasible.

So, while I had talked with Colin a bit before the proposal came to light three days ago, only since then am I really starting to understand the implications of it, and I'm sorry to say that I have an increasing number of concerns about this merging proposal particularly around building on the SAL in its current form.

I'm doing my best to document these concerns and bring them to public discussion ASAP but some of them are very subtle (e..g, "yes, some of the function prototypes do _look_ the same, but the consistency guarantees are different, so this is a huge amount of work to port") and so it's a bit slow going.

The bottom line is that I'm rushing to get feedback on this and I'm very worried about people pre-supposing that "no news is good news".  While we're definitely behind the high level idea of a "best of breed" merged controller, I think we're going to have to weigh in with a different view on how to get there.  

I'll be working on this all night to see if I can get something in front of the TSC by tomorrow.

- Rob
.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Vijoy Pandey <vijoy.pandey@...> wrote:

Folks,

The Dixon-Erickson (DE) proposal has been built from the ground up looking at the various pros and cons of the two controller bases. I believe its unbiased, has solid technical merit, its open and frankly, its the best proposal we have.

I think we should start using this proposal as the guideline to actually start the code and merge the controller bases into one, and start writing applications around it - Anees, Colin and the team from IBM will start working on this direction right away.

-vijoy



Thomas Nadeau ---05/08/2013 01:51:18 PM---We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson prop

From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@...>
To: Colin Dixon/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: "discuss@..." <discuss@...>, "tsc-bounces@..." <tsc-bounces@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date: 05/08/2013 01:51 PM


Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
Sent by: tsc-bounces@...





We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson proposal because it makes most sense to us. I'd like to move forward with this as soon as possible.

--Tom


    I feel a bit sheepish after you saying "to be crystal clear" in the first sentence, but I'm still a bit confused.

    Are you saying that you agree with
    (1) the proposal that Dave Erickson and I put forward for how to merge the two controllers?
    (2) the proposal that Chris Wright made to try to decide the issue before the hackfest?
    (3) or both?


    Thanks,
    --Colin


    tsc-bounces@... wrote on 05/08/2013 02:48:09 PM:
    > From: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>
    > To: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>, Abhishek Chauhan
    > <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood
    > <
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>,
    > "
    discuss@..." <discuss@...>
    > Date: 05/08/2013 02:52 PM
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
    > Sent by:
    tsc-bounces@...
    >
    > A few have pinged me asking me to be crystal clear about what I
    > said, so here goes:
    >
    > I personally have been following the discussions and presentations
    > on the merge question and believe the proposal on the table from
    > Chris et al answers the question in a sufficiently detailed,
    > objective and sound manner for us to move forward. Based on that, I
    > do not see any benefit in extending the time we need to decide on
    > this proposal unless there is additional (substantive) discussion
    > that materializes in the very near future.
    >
    > --Tom
    >
    > From: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:26 PM
    > To: Abhishek Chauhan <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood <
    >
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "
    >
    discuss@..." <discuss@...>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >
    > Thanks for clarifying my point. *)
    >
    > Adding discuss list too.
    >
    > --Tom
    >
    > From: Abhishek Chauhan <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:22 PM
    > To: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>, Rob Sherwood <
    >
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>
    > Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >
    > I should have employed more precision below.
    >  
    > To be clear – I agree with Tom, that we should keep the current pace
    > on the controller unification efforts, and not couple it with the hackfest.
    >  
    > -abhishek
    >  
    > From: Abhishek Chauhan
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:14 PM
    > To: Thomas Nadeau; Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
    > Cc:
    tsc@...
    > Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    > I agree.
    >  
    > --
    > abhishek
    >  
    > From:
    tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-
    >
    bounces@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:06 PM
    > To: Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
    > Cc:
    tsc@...
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    >  
    > I personally would rather not delay the decisions that need to be
    > made until June.
    >  
    > --Tom
    >  
    >  
    > From: Rob Sherwood <
    rob.sherwood@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:50 PM
    > To: Phil Robb <
    probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    > Question:
    >  
    > There was some talk (suggested by Chris Wright, IIRC) about trying
    > to coordinate the controller merge proposals evaluation/decision
    > process with the hackfest.  Now that the hackfest dates are being
    > moved out, do we still want to do this?
    >  
    > I would suggest yes, but I wonder what others think.
    >  
    > - Rob
    > .
    >  
    > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Phil Robb <
    probb@...> wrote:
    > Hello TSC:
    >  
    > As you know we have been working on the dates for the next Hackfest.
    > While we were quite close on one upcoming date, we have had multiple
    > requests to schedule the next hackfest later.  The new proposed
    > date/location for the next hackfest is:
    >  
    > When: June 6th and 7th, 2013.
    > Where: Hotel Valencia at Santana Row (San Jose)
    >  
    > Pushing back the date provides a variety of benefits including more
    > time for participants to make travel arrangements resulting in
    > significantly higher attendance.
    >  
    > My apologies if this has caused anyone significant inconvenience.
    >  
    > TSC members, please let me know if you will be able to attend.
    >  
    > If there is reasonable representation from the TSC,  we will lock
    > this date down and send a broader announcement to the full developercommunity.
    >  
    > Phil.
    > --
    > Phil Robb
    > Director - Networking Solutions
    > The Linux Foundation
    > (O) 970-229-5949
    > (M) 970-420-4292
    > Skype: Phil.Robb
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > TSC mailing list
    >
    TSC@...
    >
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
    >  _______________________________________________
    > TSC mailing list
    >
    TSC@...

    >
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc_______________________________________________
    TSC mailing list
    TSC@...
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc


_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc




--
Phil Robb
Director - Networking Solutions
The Linux Foundation
(O) 970-229-5949
(M) 970-420-4292
Skype: Phil.Robb


Re: Revised merged controller proposal

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:43 AM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...> wrote:
[resending without attachment -- can we please bump up the attachment file
limit to something reasonable?]

After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal,
we ran into a bunch of concerns. Below is a link to a proposal which we
believe addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my
understanding of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the impending
deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on today's
call.
Sure. Let me work on the agenda this AM. --dmm

I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going than
my previous merge d controller proposal.

Open to comments,

https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Layered_API_Merged_Controller_Proposal


- Rob
.

_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] Next Hackfest Dates

David Meyer <dmm@...>
 

Rob, I see that you tried to add a pdf to the "layered API proposal" that didn't make it (looks like size limitations). Can you work with Phil to get this posted?

Thnx,

--dmm


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Rob Sherwood <rob.sherwood@...> wrote:
Hi all,

Apologies if I've been slow to reply, but it's been because I've been heads down reading code and meeting with our top engineers discussing the proposal.  Colin and Dave have done a great job throwing together something that looks good on paper, but given that BSN is going to bet the entire company on this project, it's important that we really drive down to a fine level of detail to convince ourselves that this makes sense and is feasible.

So, while I had talked with Colin a bit before the proposal came to light three days ago, only since then am I really starting to understand the implications of it, and I'm sorry to say that I have an increasing number of concerns about this merging proposal particularly around building on the SAL in its current form.

I'm doing my best to document these concerns and bring them to public discussion ASAP but some of them are very subtle (e..g, "yes, some of the function prototypes do _look_ the same, but the consistency guarantees are different, so this is a huge amount of work to port") and so it's a bit slow going.

The bottom line is that I'm rushing to get feedback on this and I'm very worried about people pre-supposing that "no news is good news".  While we're definitely behind the high level idea of a "best of breed" merged controller, I think we're going to have to weigh in with a different view on how to get there.  

I'll be working on this all night to see if I can get something in front of the TSC by tomorrow.

- Rob
.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Vijoy Pandey <vijoy.pandey@...> wrote:

Folks,

The Dixon-Erickson (DE) proposal has been built from the ground up looking at the various pros and cons of the two controller bases. I believe its unbiased, has solid technical merit, its open and frankly, its the best proposal we have.

I think we should start using this proposal as the guideline to actually start the code and merge the controller bases into one, and start writing applications around it - Anees, Colin and the team from IBM will start working on this direction right away.

-vijoy



Thomas Nadeau ---05/08/2013 01:51:18 PM---We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson prop

From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@...>
To: Colin Dixon/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: "discuss@..." <discuss@...>, "tsc-bounces@..." <tsc-bounces@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date: 05/08/2013 01:51 PM


Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
Sent by: tsc-bounces@...





We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson proposal because it makes most sense to us. I'd like to move forward with this as soon as possible.

--Tom


    I feel a bit sheepish after you saying "to be crystal clear" in the first sentence, but I'm still a bit confused.

    Are you saying that you agree with
    (1) the proposal that Dave Erickson and I put forward for how to merge the two controllers?
    (2) the proposal that Chris Wright made to try to decide the issue before the hackfest?
    (3) or both?


    Thanks,
    --Colin


    tsc-bounces@... wrote on 05/08/2013 02:48:09 PM:
    > From: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>
    > To: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>, Abhishek Chauhan
    > <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood
    > <
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>,
    > "
    discuss@..." <discuss@...>
    > Date: 05/08/2013 02:52 PM
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
    > Sent by:
    tsc-bounces@...
    >
    > A few have pinged me asking me to be crystal clear about what I
    > said, so here goes:
    >
    > I personally have been following the discussions and presentations
    > on the merge question and believe the proposal on the table from
    > Chris et al answers the question in a sufficiently detailed,
    > objective and sound manner for us to move forward. Based on that, I
    > do not see any benefit in extending the time we need to decide on
    > this proposal unless there is additional (substantive) discussion
    > that materializes in the very near future.
    >
    > --Tom
    >
    > From: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:26 PM
    > To: Abhishek Chauhan <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood <
    >
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "
    >
    discuss@..." <discuss@...>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >
    > Thanks for clarifying my point. *)
    >
    > Adding discuss list too.
    >
    > --Tom
    >
    > From: Abhishek Chauhan <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:22 PM
    > To: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>, Rob Sherwood <
    >
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>
    > Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >
    > I should have employed more precision below.
    >  
    > To be clear – I agree with Tom, that we should keep the current pace
    > on the controller unification efforts, and not couple it with the hackfest.
    >  
    > -abhishek
    >  
    > From: Abhishek Chauhan
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:14 PM
    > To: Thomas Nadeau; Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
    > Cc:
    tsc@...
    > Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    > I agree.
    >  
    > --
    > abhishek
    >  
    > From:
    tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-
    >
    bounces@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:06 PM
    > To: Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
    > Cc:
    tsc@...
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    >  
    > I personally would rather not delay the decisions that need to be
    > made until June.
    >  
    > --Tom
    >  
    >  
    > From: Rob Sherwood <
    rob.sherwood@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:50 PM
    > To: Phil Robb <
    probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    > Question:
    >  
    > There was some talk (suggested by Chris Wright, IIRC) about trying
    > to coordinate the controller merge proposals evaluation/decision
    > process with the hackfest.  Now that the hackfest dates are being
    > moved out, do we still want to do this?
    >  
    > I would suggest yes, but I wonder what others think.
    >  
    > - Rob
    > .
    >  
    > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Phil Robb <
    probb@...> wrote:
    > Hello TSC:
    >  
    > As you know we have been working on the dates for the next Hackfest.
    > While we were quite close on one upcoming date, we have had multiple
    > requests to schedule the next hackfest later.  The new proposed
    > date/location for the next hackfest is:
    >  
    > When: June 6th and 7th, 2013.
    > Where: Hotel Valencia at Santana Row (San Jose)
    >  
    > Pushing back the date provides a variety of benefits including more
    > time for participants to make travel arrangements resulting in
    > significantly higher attendance.
    >  
    > My apologies if this has caused anyone significant inconvenience.
    >  
    > TSC members, please let me know if you will be able to attend.
    >  
    > If there is reasonable representation from the TSC,  we will lock
    > this date down and send a broader announcement to the full developercommunity.
    >  
    > Phil.
    > --
    > Phil Robb
    > Director - Networking Solutions
    > The Linux Foundation
    > (O) 970-229-5949
    > (M) 970-420-4292
    > Skype: Phil.Robb
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > TSC mailing list
    >
    TSC@...
    >
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
    >  _______________________________________________
    > TSC mailing list
    >
    TSC@...

    >
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc_______________________________________________
    TSC mailing list
    TSC@...
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc


_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc



_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



Re: Revised merged controller proposal

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@...>
 



On May 9, 2013, at 8:43 AM, "Rob Sherwood" <rob.sherwood@...> wrote:

[resending without attachment -- can we please bump up the attachment file limit to something reasonable?]

After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal, we ran into a bunch of concerns.  Below is a link to a proposal which we believe addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my understanding of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the impending deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on today's call.

I'd second that request. lets spend as much time on this as we need to discuss today. 

Tom 


I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going than my previous merge d controller proposal.

Open to comments,



- Rob
.
_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Revised merged controller proposal

Rob Sherwood
 

[resending without attachment -- can we please bump up the attachment file limit to something reasonable?]

After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal, we ran into a bunch of concerns.  Below is a link to a proposal which we believe addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my understanding of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the impending deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on today's call.

I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going than my previous merge d controller proposal.

Open to comments,



- Rob
.


Revised merged controller proposal

Rob Sherwood
 

After looking in depth into the implications of Colin and Dave's proposal, we ran into a bunch of concerns.  Attached is a proposal which we believe addresses those concerns while trying to keep to (at least my understanding of) the spirit of what Colin and Dave were advocating.

I know there's a lot on the TSC agenda, but particularly given the impending deadline, I'd like to get a time slot of discuss this proposal on today's call.

I'll also post this to discuss to see if we can get more comments going than my previous merge d controller proposal.

Open to comments,

- Rob


Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] Next Hackfest Dates

Abhishek Chauhan
 

In the interest of making progress towards shaping our contribution for ODP, we are also proceeding to develop code with DE proposal as the working assumption.

 

-abhishek

 

From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Vijoy Pandey
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 2:01 PM
To: Thomas Nadeau; Colin Dixon; discuss@...; tsc@...; tsc-bounces@...
Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss] Next Hackfest Dates

 

Folks,

The Dixon-Erickson (DE) proposal has been built from the ground up looking at the various pros and cons of the two controller bases. I believe its unbiased, has solid technical merit, its open and frankly, its the best proposal we have.

I think we should start using this proposal as the guideline to actually start the code and merge the controller bases into one, and start writing applications around it - Anees, Colin and the team from IBM will start working on this direction right away.

-vijoy



Thomas Nadeau ---05/08/2013 01:51:18 PM---We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson prop

From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@...>
To: Colin Dixon/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: "discuss@..." <discuss@...>, "tsc-bounces@..." <tsc-bounces@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date: 05/08/2013 01:51 PM
Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
Sent by: tsc-bounces@...






We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson proposal because it makes most sense to us. I'd like to move forward with this as soon as possible.

--Tom


I feel a bit sheepish after you saying "to be crystal clear" in the first sentence, but I'm still a bit confused.

Are you saying that you agree with
(1) the proposal that Dave Erickson and I put forward for how to merge the two controllers?
(2) the proposal that Chris Wright made to try to decide the issue before the hackfest?
(3) or both?


Thanks,
--Colin


tsc-bounces@... wrote on 05/08/2013 02:48:09 PM:
> From: Thomas Nadeau <
tnadeau@...>
> To: Thomas Nadeau <
tnadeau@...>, Abhishek Chauhan
> <
Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood
> <
rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
> Cc: "
tsc@..." <tsc@...>,
> "
discuss@..." <discuss@...>
> Date: 05/08/2013 02:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
> Sent by:
tsc-bounces@...
>
> A few have pinged me asking me to be crystal clear about what I
> said, so here goes:
>
> I personally have been following the discussions and presentations
> on the merge question and believe the proposal on the table from
> Chris et al answers the question in a sufficiently detailed,
> objective and sound manner for us to move forward. Based on that, I
> do not see any benefit in extending the time we need to decide on
> this proposal unless there is additional (substantive) discussion
> that materializes in the very near future.
>
> --Tom
>
> From: Thomas Nadeau <
tnadeau@...>
> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:26 PM
> To: Abhishek Chauhan <
Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood <
>
rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
> Cc: "
tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "
>
discuss@..." <discuss@...>
> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
>
> Thanks for clarifying my point. *)
>
> Adding discuss list too.
>
> --Tom
>
> From: Abhishek Chauhan <
Abhishek.Chauhan@...>
> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:22 PM
> To: Thomas Nadeau <
tnadeau@...>, Rob Sherwood <
>
rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
> Cc: "
tsc@..." <tsc@...>
> Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
>
> I should have employed more precision below.
>  
> To be clear – I agree with Tom, that we should keep the current pace
> on the controller unification efforts, and not couple it with the hackfest.
>  
> -abhishek
>  
> From: Abhishek Chauhan
> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:14 PM
> To: Thomas Nadeau; Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
> Cc:
tsc@...
> Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
>  
> I agree.
>  
> --
> abhishek
>  
> From:
tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-
>
bounces@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
> Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:06 PM
> To: Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
> Cc:
tsc@...
> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
>  
>  
> I personally would rather not delay the decisions that need to be
> made until June.
>  
> --Tom
>  
>  
> From: Rob Sherwood <
rob.sherwood@...>
> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:50 PM
> To: Phil Robb <
probb@...>
> Cc: "
tsc@..." <tsc@...>
> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
>  
> Question:
>  
> There was some talk (suggested by Chris Wright, IIRC) about trying
> to coordinate the controller merge proposals evaluation/decision
> process with the hackfest.  Now that the hackfest dates are being
> moved out, do we still want to do this?
>  
> I would suggest yes, but I wonder what others think.
>  
> - Rob
> .
>  
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Phil Robb <
probb@...> wrote:
> Hello TSC:
>  
> As you know we have been working on the dates for the next Hackfest.
> While we were quite close on one upcoming date, we have had multiple
> requests to schedule the next hackfest later.  The new proposed
> date/location for the next hackfest is:
>  
> When: June 6th and 7th, 2013.
> Where: Hotel Valencia at Santana Row (San Jose)
>  
> Pushing back the date provides a variety of benefits including more
> time for participants to make travel arrangements resulting in
> significantly higher attendance.
>  
> My apologies if this has caused anyone significant inconvenience.
>  
> TSC members, please let me know if you will be able to attend.
>  
> If there is reasonable representation from the TSC,  we will lock
> this date down and send a broader announcement to the full developercommunity.
>  
> Phil.
> --
> Phil Robb
> Director - Networking Solutions
> The Linux Foundation
> (O) 970-229-5949
> (M) 970-420-4292
> Skype: Phil.Robb
>
> _______________________________________________
> TSC mailing list
>
TSC@...
>
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
>  _______________________________________________
> TSC mailing list
>
TSC@...
>
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc


Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] Next Hackfest Dates

Rob Sherwood
 

Hi all,

Apologies if I've been slow to reply, but it's been because I've been heads down reading code and meeting with our top engineers discussing the proposal.  Colin and Dave have done a great job throwing together something that looks good on paper, but given that BSN is going to bet the entire company on this project, it's important that we really drive down to a fine level of detail to convince ourselves that this makes sense and is feasible.

So, while I had talked with Colin a bit before the proposal came to light three days ago, only since then am I really starting to understand the implications of it, and I'm sorry to say that I have an increasing number of concerns about this merging proposal particularly around building on the SAL in its current form.

I'm doing my best to document these concerns and bring them to public discussion ASAP but some of them are very subtle (e..g, "yes, some of the function prototypes do _look_ the same, but the consistency guarantees are different, so this is a huge amount of work to port") and so it's a bit slow going.

The bottom line is that I'm rushing to get feedback on this and I'm very worried about people pre-supposing that "no news is good news".  While we're definitely behind the high level idea of a "best of breed" merged controller, I think we're going to have to weigh in with a different view on how to get there.  

I'll be working on this all night to see if I can get something in front of the TSC by tomorrow.

- Rob
.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Vijoy Pandey <vijoy.pandey@...> wrote:

Folks,

The Dixon-Erickson (DE) proposal has been built from the ground up looking at the various pros and cons of the two controller bases. I believe its unbiased, has solid technical merit, its open and frankly, its the best proposal we have.

I think we should start using this proposal as the guideline to actually start the code and merge the controller bases into one, and start writing applications around it - Anees, Colin and the team from IBM will start working on this direction right away.

-vijoy



Thomas Nadeau ---05/08/2013 01:51:18 PM---We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson prop

From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@...>
To: Colin Dixon/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: "discuss@..." <discuss@...>, "tsc-bounces@..." <tsc-bounces@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date: 05/08/2013 01:51 PM


Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
Sent by: tsc-bounces@...





We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson proposal because it makes most sense to us. I'd like to move forward with this as soon as possible.

--Tom


    I feel a bit sheepish after you saying "to be crystal clear" in the first sentence, but I'm still a bit confused.

    Are you saying that you agree with
    (1) the proposal that Dave Erickson and I put forward for how to merge the two controllers?
    (2) the proposal that Chris Wright made to try to decide the issue before the hackfest?
    (3) or both?


    Thanks,
    --Colin


    tsc-bounces@... wrote on 05/08/2013 02:48:09 PM:
    > From: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>
    > To: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>, Abhishek Chauhan
    > <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood
    > <
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>,
    > "
    discuss@..." <discuss@...>
    > Date: 05/08/2013 02:52 PM
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
    > Sent by:
    tsc-bounces@...
    >
    > A few have pinged me asking me to be crystal clear about what I
    > said, so here goes:
    >
    > I personally have been following the discussions and presentations
    > on the merge question and believe the proposal on the table from
    > Chris et al answers the question in a sufficiently detailed,
    > objective and sound manner for us to move forward. Based on that, I
    > do not see any benefit in extending the time we need to decide on
    > this proposal unless there is additional (substantive) discussion
    > that materializes in the very near future.
    >
    > --Tom
    >
    > From: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:26 PM
    > To: Abhishek Chauhan <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood <
    >
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "
    >
    discuss@..." <discuss@...>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >
    > Thanks for clarifying my point. *)
    >
    > Adding discuss list too.
    >
    > --Tom
    >
    > From: Abhishek Chauhan <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:22 PM
    > To: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>, Rob Sherwood <
    >
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>
    > Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >
    > I should have employed more precision below.
    >  
    > To be clear – I agree with Tom, that we should keep the current pace
    > on the controller unification efforts, and not couple it with the hackfest.
    >  
    > -abhishek
    >  
    > From: Abhishek Chauhan
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:14 PM
    > To: Thomas Nadeau; Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
    > Cc:
    tsc@...
    > Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    > I agree.
    >  
    > --
    > abhishek
    >  
    > From:
    tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-
    >
    bounces@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:06 PM
    > To: Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
    > Cc:
    tsc@...
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    >  
    > I personally would rather not delay the decisions that need to be
    > made until June.
    >  
    > --Tom
    >  
    >  
    > From: Rob Sherwood <
    rob.sherwood@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:50 PM
    > To: Phil Robb <
    probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    > Question:
    >  
    > There was some talk (suggested by Chris Wright, IIRC) about trying
    > to coordinate the controller merge proposals evaluation/decision
    > process with the hackfest.  Now that the hackfest dates are being
    > moved out, do we still want to do this?
    >  
    > I would suggest yes, but I wonder what others think.
    >  
    > - Rob
    > .
    >  
    > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Phil Robb <
    probb@...> wrote:
    > Hello TSC:
    >  
    > As you know we have been working on the dates for the next Hackfest.
    > While we were quite close on one upcoming date, we have had multiple
    > requests to schedule the next hackfest later.  The new proposed
    > date/location for the next hackfest is:
    >  
    > When: June 6th and 7th, 2013.
    > Where: Hotel Valencia at Santana Row (San Jose)
    >  
    > Pushing back the date provides a variety of benefits including more
    > time for participants to make travel arrangements resulting in
    > significantly higher attendance.
    >  
    > My apologies if this has caused anyone significant inconvenience.
    >  
    > TSC members, please let me know if you will be able to attend.
    >  
    > If there is reasonable representation from the TSC,  we will lock
    > this date down and send a broader announcement to the full developercommunity.
    >  
    > Phil.
    > --
    > Phil Robb
    > Director - Networking Solutions
    > The Linux Foundation
    > (O) 970-229-5949
    > (M) 970-420-4292
    > Skype: Phil.Robb
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > TSC mailing list
    >
    TSC@...
    >
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
    >  _______________________________________________
    > TSC mailing list
    >
    TSC@...

    >
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc_______________________________________________
    TSC mailing list
    TSC@...
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc


_______________________________________________
TSC mailing list
TSC@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc



Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] Next Hackfest Dates

Vijoy Pandey <vijoy.pandey@...>
 

Folks,

The Dixon-Erickson (DE) proposal has been built from the ground up looking at the various pros and cons of the two controller bases. I believe its unbiased, has solid technical merit, its open and frankly, its the best proposal we have.

I think we should start using this proposal as the guideline to actually start the code and merge the controller bases into one, and start writing applications around it - Anees, Colin and the team from IBM will start working on this direction right away.

-vijoy



Thomas Nadeau ---05/08/2013 01:51:18 PM---We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson prop

From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@...>
To: Colin Dixon/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
Cc: "discuss@..." <discuss@...>, "tsc-bounces@..." <tsc-bounces@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>
Date: 05/08/2013 01:51 PM
Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
Sent by: tsc-bounces@...






We intend to make our contribution (and start developing code) in the context of Dixon-Ericsson proposal because it makes most sense to us. I'd like to move forward with this as soon as possible.

--Tom


    I feel a bit sheepish after you saying "to be crystal clear" in the first sentence, but I'm still a bit confused.

    Are you saying that you agree with
    (1) the proposal that Dave Erickson and I put forward for how to merge the two controllers?
    (2) the proposal that Chris Wright made to try to decide the issue before the hackfest?
    (3) or both?


    Thanks,
    --Colin


    tsc-bounces@... wrote on 05/08/2013 02:48:09 PM:
    > From: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>
    > To: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>, Abhishek Chauhan
    > <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood
    > <
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>,
    > "
    discuss@..." <discuss@...>
    > Date: 05/08/2013 02:52 PM
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [OpenDaylight Discuss]  Next Hackfest Dates
    > Sent by:
    tsc-bounces@...
    >
    > A few have pinged me asking me to be crystal clear about what I
    > said, so here goes:
    >
    > I personally have been following the discussions and presentations
    > on the merge question and believe the proposal on the table from
    > Chris et al answers the question in a sufficiently detailed,
    > objective and sound manner for us to move forward. Based on that, I
    > do not see any benefit in extending the time we need to decide on
    > this proposal unless there is additional (substantive) discussion
    > that materializes in the very near future.
    >
    > --Tom
    >
    > From: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:26 PM
    > To: Abhishek Chauhan <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>, Rob Sherwood <
    >
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "
    >
    discuss@..." <discuss@...>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight Discuss] [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >
    > Thanks for clarifying my point. *)
    >
    > Adding discuss list too.
    >
    > --Tom
    >
    > From: Abhishek Chauhan <
    Abhishek.Chauhan@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 3:22 PM
    > To: Thomas Nadeau <
    tnadeau@...>, Rob Sherwood <
    >
    rob.sherwood@...>, Phil Robb <probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>
    > Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >
    > I should have employed more precision below.
    >  
    > To be clear – I agree with Tom, that we should keep the current pace
    > on the controller unification efforts, and not couple it with the hackfest.
    >  
    > -abhishek
    >  
    > From: Abhishek Chauhan
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:14 PM
    > To: Thomas Nadeau; Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
    > Cc:
    tsc@...
    > Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    > I agree.
    >  
    > --
    > abhishek
    >  
    > From:
    tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-
    >
    bounces@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Nadeau
    > Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 12:06 PM
    > To: Rob Sherwood; Phil Robb
    > Cc:
    tsc@...
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    >  
    > I personally would rather not delay the decisions that need to be
    > made until June.
    >  
    > --Tom
    >  
    >  
    > From: Rob Sherwood <
    rob.sherwood@...>
    > Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:50 PM
    > To: Phil Robb <
    probb@...>
    > Cc: "
    tsc@..." <tsc@...>
    > Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Next Hackfest Dates
    >  
    > Question:
    >  
    > There was some talk (suggested by Chris Wright, IIRC) about trying
    > to coordinate the controller merge proposals evaluation/decision
    > process with the hackfest.  Now that the hackfest dates are being
    > moved out, do we still want to do this?
    >  
    > I would suggest yes, but I wonder what others think.
    >  
    > - Rob
    > .
    >  
    > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Phil Robb <
    probb@...> wrote:
    > Hello TSC:
    >  
    > As you know we have been working on the dates for the next Hackfest.
    > While we were quite close on one upcoming date, we have had multiple
    > requests to schedule the next hackfest later.  The new proposed
    > date/location for the next hackfest is:
    >  
    > When: June 6th and 7th, 2013.
    > Where: Hotel Valencia at Santana Row (San Jose)
    >  
    > Pushing back the date provides a variety of benefits including more
    > time for participants to make travel arrangements resulting in
    > significantly higher attendance.
    >  
    > My apologies if this has caused anyone significant inconvenience.
    >  
    > TSC members, please let me know if you will be able to attend.
    >  
    > If there is reasonable representation from the TSC,  we will lock
    > this date down and send a broader announcement to the full developercommunity.
    >  
    > Phil.
    > --
    > Phil Robb
    > Director - Networking Solutions
    > The Linux Foundation
    > (O) 970-229-5949
    > (M) 970-420-4292
    > Skype: Phil.Robb
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > TSC mailing list
    >
    TSC@...
    >
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc
    >  _______________________________________________
    > TSC mailing list
    >
    TSC@...
    >
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc_______________________________________________
    TSC mailing list
    TSC@...
    https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc

14161 - 14180 of 14323