Updated slides with proposed release vehicles.
|
Christopher Price <christopher.price@...>
Hi All,
Attached is the "rebranded" (as close as I could come) slides for discussion on the target release vehicles.
This is in ppt formal as it's certainly far from final at this stage. I would like to see some good discussion to resolve how we will package Hydrogen at the end of the day. The quicker we close that topic the faster we can get into concrete discussions
on our integration strategy.
/ Chris
|
|
|
|
Benny Rochwerger <BennyR@...>
Chris,
A couple of comments on the proposed editions:
- We (the Defense4All team) had some discussions with the Affinity Service team and reached the conclusion that we can probably use the Affinity Service to achieve the functionality of the TrafficRedirection Service, so pending final confirmation from the AffinityService team, we may drop that box. Hence it whatever edition(s ) the DDoS application is included, the Affinity Service is also required - I believe that the DDoS application should also be part of the Virtualization Edition. In our commercial offering of this application, we do have both providers and virtualized data centers version, and we have deployments of both versions.
Looking forward to this discussion later today,
Benny
From: tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Christopher Price
Hi All,
Attached is the "rebranded" (as close as I could come) slides for discussion on the target release vehicles. This is in ppt formal as it's certainly far from final at this stage. I would like to see some good discussion to resolve how we will package Hydrogen at the end of the day. The quicker we close that topic the faster we can get into concrete discussions on our integration strategy.
/ Chris |
|
|
|
Christopher Price <christopher.price@...>
Thanks Benny,
I was absolutely sure the proposal was flawed and was looking forward to some input, to be honest I felt I had the placement of the DDoS function wrong but was waiting for someone to tell me so.
It would be great, both architecturally and practically, if we can re-use services to create a consistent functional break-down. The slides should reflect that in our release vehicles and intent I am happy to change them (I will try to update the slides
before the call based on your input here).
Additionally as you say we need to, as a community, discuss the release intents for our vehicles.
It may be that we choose to release functions in one release vehicle and not another even if the service is applicable in both domains. A skilled ODL company can create a custom package with little trouble, the release vehicles are intended to be simple
and focused. It may be that Defence4all should be in both but let's discuss not only the potential but practical aspects of these decisions on the call. (the name Defence4all is indicative of the intent of the function)
Thanks for commenting Benny, let's talk more this afternoon.
/ Chris
From: Benny Rochwerger <BennyR@...>
Date: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:05 AM To: Ericsson <christopher.price@...>, Anees A Shaikh <aashaikh@...>, Luis Gomez <luis.gomez@...>, "tsc@..." <tsc@...>, "David Lenrow (david.lenrow@...)" <david.lenrow@...>, Avi Chesla <AviCh@...> Subject: RE: [OpenDaylight TSC] Updated slides with proposed release vehicles. Chris,
A couple of comments on the proposed editions:
- We (the Defense4All team) had some discussions with the Affinity Service team and reached the conclusion that we can probably use the Affinity Service to achieve the functionality of the TrafficRedirection Service, so pending final confirmation from the AffinityService team, we may drop that box. Hence it whatever edition(s ) the DDoS application is included, the Affinity Service is also required - I believe that the DDoS application should also be part of the Virtualization Edition. In our commercial offering of this application, we do have both providers and virtualized data centers version, and we have deployments of both versions.
Looking forward to this discussion later today,
Benny
From:
tsc-bounces@... [mailto:tsc-bounces@...]
On Behalf Of Christopher Price
Hi All,
Attached is the "rebranded" (as close as I could come) slides for discussion on the target release vehicles. This is in ppt formal as it's certainly far from final at this stage. I would like to see some good discussion to resolve how we will package Hydrogen at the end of the day. The quicker we close that topic the faster we can get into concrete discussions on our integration strategy.
/ Chris |
|
|
|
Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
I've updated with the other changes discussed not the call:
1) DDos added to Virtualization Edition
2) Replaced "Traffic Redirection" with "Affinity Service" in Service Provider Edition per Benny.
3) Added "OpenStack Service" to the virtualization edition to reflect the OpenStack discussions from the Hackfest
4) Added 'Glow' to show the additions above Base Edition (thanks Rob :) ).
I *think* that was all the changes. What do folks think?
Ed
|
|
|
|
Luis Gomez <luis.gomez@...>
Yes, this collects well what we discussed today. I think as long as the projects (not sure if they were all in the call) are comfortable being part of this or that release vehicle, we are close to a decision here.
From: Ed Warnicke (eaw) [mailto:eaw@...]
I've updated with the other changes discussed not the call:
1) DDos added to Virtualization Edition 2) Replaced "Traffic Redirection" with "Affinity Service" in Service Provider Edition per Benny. 3) Added "OpenStack Service" to the virtualization edition to reflect the OpenStack discussions from the Hackfest 4) Added 'Glow' to show the additions above Base Edition (thanks Rob :) ).
I *think* that was all the changes. What do folks think?
Ed
On Sep 16, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Christopher Price <christopher.price@...> wrote:
Hi All,
Attached is the "rebranded" (as close as I could come) slides for discussion on the target release vehicles. This is in ppt formal as it's certainly far from final at this stage. I would like to see some good discussion to resolve how we will package Hydrogen at the end of the day. The quicker we close that topic the faster we can get into concrete discussions on our integration strategy.
/ Chris <Discussion material for OpenDaylight Release Vehicles V2.ppt>_______________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Hi, all Like the slides very much! While notice a little flaw: every OVSDB's "protocol" should be capitalized, aligned with others. Thanks!
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...> wrote:
Best wishes! Baohua |
|
|
|
Madhu Venugopal (vmadhu) <vmadhu@...>
Hi Ed,
As discussed in the Technical work stream call, Network Configuration Service is missing.
Thanks,
Madhu
From: Ed Warnicke <eaw@...>
Date: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:32 PM To: Christopher Price <christopher.price@...> Cc: "tsc@..." <tsc@...> Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] Updated slides with proposed release vehicles. I've updated with the other changes discussed not the call:
1) DDos added to Virtualization Edition
2) Replaced "Traffic Redirection" with "Affinity Service" in Service Provider Edition per Benny.
3) Added "OpenStack Service" to the virtualization edition to reflect the OpenStack discussions from the Hackfest
4) Added 'Glow' to show the additions above Base Edition (thanks Rob :) ).
I *think* that was all the changes. What do folks think?
Ed
|
|
|
|
Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Apologies...I'll update when I land :)
|
|
|
|
Ed Warnicke (eaw) <eaw@...>
Benny,
I think I've incorporated your requests into the attached deck, as well as Madhu's and Baohua's.
Ed
On Sep 16, 2013, at 5:05 AM, Benny Rochwerger <BennyR@...> wrote:
|
|
|