TSC holds APAC meeting every fourth Thursday of every month, the next meeting is on 8/24 (8/23 in Pacific Time Zone).

 

Best Regards,

An Ho

 

From: tsc-bounces@lists.opendaylight.org [mailto:tsc-bounces@lists.opendaylight.org] On Behalf Of Anil Vishnoi
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:08 AM
To: 段凯元
Cc: <tsc@...>; project-proposals
Subject: Re: [OpenDaylight TSC] [Project-proposals] Project proposal of GNT

 

Hi Duankauyuan,

 

Looks like GNT project proposal is ready for the creation review, so we can officially start the two week of review process for TSC to review the proposal.

 

I believe month end TSC meeting (08/30) is scheduled for Asia-friendly timezone, so it's prefect timing for your project creation review. Pleas let us know if this time works for you.

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2017&month=8&day=30&hour=3&min=30&sec=0&p1=771&p2=33&p3=248&p4=283&p5=263&p6=37

 

 You can read through some advice on creation reviews here:

https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Main#Instructions_for_Submitting_Creation_Review

 

​Thanks

Anil​

 

 

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:06 PM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:

The Yang model currently is defined by ourselves, some attribute fields refer to the standard definition of IETF.

 

----邮件原文----
发件人：Robert Varga  <nite@...>
收件人："段凯元" <duankaiyuan@chinamobile.com>,project-proposals  <project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org>
抄　送: (无)
发送时间：2017-08-21 16:10:22
主题：Re: [Project-proposals] Project proposal of GNT

On 08/08/17 11:54, 段凯元 wrote:
> 
> Hi, everyone

Hello,

> 
> 
> We are still discussing with Colin about the TTP project(integrate or
> not), thus currently, we only create the project proposal about
> GNT(General Network Topology). Please review it. Thanks!
> 
> Here is the link: 
> 
> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:General_Network_Topology

Thanks. One immediate question: when you mention 'we have defined a new
YANG model which provides the abstraction of different kinds of
southbound resources', is this model based on the IETF network topology
work, or is it something completely separate?

Regards,
Robert

Subject：Re: [Project-proposals] Project proposal of GNT

On 08/08/17 11:54, 段凯元 wrote:
> 
> Hi, everyone

Hello,

> 
> 
> We are still discussing with Colin about the TTP project(integrate or
> not), thus currently, we only create the project proposal about
> GNT(General Network Topology). Please review it. Thanks!
> 
> Here is the link: 
> 
> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:General_Network_Topology

Thanks. One immediate question: when you mention 'we have defined a new
YANG model which provides the abstraction of different kinds of
southbound resources', is this model based on the IETF network topology
work, or is it something completely separate?

Regards,
Robert

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

 

--

Thanks

Anil

The Yang model currently is defined by ourselves, some attribute fields refer to the standard definition of IETF.

 

----邮件原文----
发件人：Robert Varga  <nite@...>
收件人："段凯元" <duankaiyuan@chinamobile.com>,project-proposals  <project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org>
抄　送: (无)
发送时间：2017-08-21 16:10:22
主题：Re: [Project-proposals] Project proposal of GNT

On 08/08/17 11:54, 段凯元 wrote:
> 
> Hi, everyone

Hello,

> 
> 
> We are still discussing with Colin about the TTP project(integrate or
> not), thus currently, we only create the project proposal about
> GNT(General Network Topology). Please review it. Thanks!
> 
> Here is the link: 
> 
> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:General_Network_Topology

Thanks. One immediate question: when you mention 'we have defined a new
YANG model which provides the abstraction of different kinds of
southbound resources', is this model based on the IETF network topology
work, or is it something completely separate?

Regards,
Robert

Subject：Re: [Project-proposals] Project proposal of GNT

On 08/08/17 11:54, 段凯元 wrote:
> 
> Hi, everyone

Hello,

> 
> 
> We are still discussing with Colin about the TTP project(integrate or
> not), thus currently, we only create the project proposal about
> GNT(General Network Topology). Please review it. Thanks!
> 
> Here is the link: 
> 
> https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:General_Network_Topology

Thanks. One immediate question: when you mention 'we have defined a new
YANG model which provides the abstraction of different kinds of
southbound resources', is this model based on the IETF network topology
work, or is it something completely separate?

Regards,
Robert

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

It just seems easier to me to put the code in OpenFlow plugin than to pull a new project out of a hat that somehow doesn't behave like normal projects. If we can move it to OpenFlow plugin for now, that seems right.

--Colin

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Anil Vishnoi <vishnoianil@...> wrote:

As a openflow committer hat on, I also don't have any strong objection here.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

I believe it was more of a library that could be used by any project for LLDP protocol packets - even though it's currently used only by OpenFlow Plugin. Hence we thought a central place would be better. Otherwise I don't see much problem in putting it into OpenFlow Plugin.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:55 PM Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

I'm happy either way. The fact that lldp "is a protocol" doesn't seem like a compelling argument for why it can't go in the OpenFlow plugin project to me, but maybe I'm missing something. 

Abhijit, is there something I'm missing for why it shouldn't go in OpenFlow plugin?

--Colin

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:08 PM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

Thanks! I take it the conclusion was that this shouldn't be part of the OpenFlow plugin project?

The discussion leaned to a new project. I think moving to openflowplugin would be easiest, but lldp is a protocol and doesn't make sense to be there.

--Colin

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 11:57 AM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

Hello TSC,

I have included the liblldp to the list of project proposals. I would like to start the two week discussion.

This proposal is contingent on the plan to spin out the liblldp project from the controller. The goal was to get this started so we can get this started if we wanted it in for the nitrogen release.

Thanks, Sam

[1] https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Liblldp

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...ylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...ylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

--

Thanks

Anil

Hi, TSC members

 

I’d like to propose a new project vpp https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Vpp, our goal is to avoid duplicate efforts for GBP, NetVirt and SFC vpp integration as well as  fix multiple applications coexistence for VPP, I send this out per https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Simultaneous_Release:Nitrogen_Release_Plan#Schedule in order that we can incubate it as a formal project in Nitrogen release cycle or Oxygen, please schedule review process in next TSC meeting, thank you in advance.

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

As a openflow committer hat on, I also don't have any strong objection here.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 4:24 PM, Abhijit Kumbhare <abhijitkoss@...> wrote:

I believe it was more of a library that could be used by any project for LLDP protocol packets - even though it's currently used only by OpenFlow Plugin. Hence we thought a central place would be better. Otherwise I don't see much problem in putting it into OpenFlow Plugin.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:55 PM Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

I'm happy either way. The fact that lldp "is a protocol" doesn't seem like a compelling argument for why it can't go in the OpenFlow plugin project to me, but maybe I'm missing something. 

Abhijit, is there something I'm missing for why it shouldn't go in OpenFlow plugin?

--Colin

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:08 PM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

Thanks! I take it the conclusion was that this shouldn't be part of the OpenFlow plugin project?

The discussion leaned to a new project. I think moving to openflowplugin would be easiest, but lldp is a protocol and doesn't make sense to be there.

--Colin

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 11:57 AM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

Hello TSC,

I have included the liblldp to the list of project proposals. I would like to start the two week discussion.

This proposal is contingent on the plan to spin out the liblldp project from the controller. The goal was to get this started so we can get this started if we wanted it in for the nitrogen release.

Thanks, Sam

[1] https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Liblldp

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...ylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...ylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

--

Thanks

Anil

I believe it was more of a library that could be used by any project for LLDP protocol packets - even though it's currently used only by OpenFlow Plugin. Hence we thought a central place would be better. Otherwise I don't see much problem in putting it into OpenFlow Plugin.

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:55 PM Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

I'm happy either way. The fact that lldp "is a protocol" doesn't seem like a compelling argument for why it can't go in the OpenFlow plugin project to me, but maybe I'm missing something. 

Abhijit, is there something I'm missing for why it shouldn't go in OpenFlow plugin?

--Colin

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:08 PM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

Thanks! I take it the conclusion was that this shouldn't be part of the OpenFlow plugin project?

The discussion leaned to a new project. I think moving to openflowplugin would be easiest, but lldp is a protocol and doesn't make sense to be there.

--Colin

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 11:57 AM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

Hello TSC,

I have included the liblldp to the list of project proposals. I would like to start the two week discussion.

This proposal is contingent on the plan to spin out the liblldp project from the controller. The goal was to get this started so we can get this started if we wanted it in for the nitrogen release.

Thanks, Sam

[1] https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Liblldp

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

I'm happy either way. The fact that lldp "is a protocol" doesn't seem like a compelling argument for why it can't go in the OpenFlow plugin project to me, but maybe I'm missing something. 

Abhijit, is there something I'm missing for why it shouldn't go in OpenFlow plugin?

--Colin

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 2:08 PM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

Thanks! I take it the conclusion was that this shouldn't be part of the OpenFlow plugin project?

The discussion leaned to a new project. I think moving to openflowplugin would be easiest, but lldp is a protocol and doesn't make sense to be there.

--Colin

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 11:57 AM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

Hello TSC,

I have included the liblldp to the list of project proposals. I would like to start the two week discussion.

This proposal is contingent on the plan to spin out the liblldp project from the controller. The goal was to get this started so we can get this started if we wanted it in for the nitrogen release.

Thanks, Sam

[1] https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Liblldp

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Colin Dixon <colin@...> wrote:

Thanks! I take it the conclusion was that this shouldn't be part of the OpenFlow plugin project?

The discussion leaned to a new project. I think moving to openflowplugin would be easiest, but lldp is a protocol and doesn't make sense to be there.

--Colin

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 11:57 AM Sam Hague <shague@...> wrote:

Hello TSC,

I have included the liblldp to the list of project proposals. I would like to start the two week discussion.

This proposal is contingent on the plan to spin out the liblldp project from the controller. The goal was to get this started so we can get this started if we wanted it in for the nitrogen release.

Thanks, Sam

[1] https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Liblldp

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

Hello TSC,

I have included the liblldp to the list of project proposals. I would like to start the two week discussion.

This proposal is contingent on the plan to spin out the liblldp project from the controller. The goal was to get this started so we can get this started if we wanted it in for the nitrogen release.

Thanks, Sam

[1] https://wiki.opendaylight.org/view/Project_Proposals:Liblldp

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@...
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

Hi, Warnicke

Thanks for your reply, I will first share our ideas and the details about the two proposals here:

1, Hardware TTP

Our team have defined a standard TTP(Typed Table Pattern) pipeline ，which is adaptive for Neutron at the Northbound, for the hardware switch. We use OpenFlow on hardware switches to manage the communication for Layer 2&Layer 3, including the communication between physical servers, physical server and VM, server and vRouters. It can also support the security group policy management, QoS and some other basic function.

I know there is already a project related to TTP in the community, but it has not updated and code contribution for a long time and its orientation is also unclear, so we hope to lead a new project. It is ok if you prefer a project integration, but we need to solve the collision before that.

2, GNT(General network topology)

The goal of the project is to provide a unified topological layer, which can monitor different kinds of devices(ovsdb, hardwareVTEP, netconf) and computing resources(physical or virtual machine). This layer will shield the difference of the southbound protocals, make other business modules easily get the overall topo without adaption for different protocals.

Besides the function to extend logical topo through the code itself, we have defined the yang model to provide the possibilty that let business modules for other southbound protocals get data from or write data to the yang model tree.

In addition, this project refers to Neutron of the northbound configuration to analyze the distribution of different kinds of network resources.

The existing topology module is focus on the OpenFlow protocal and no design for the shield of other protocal resources.

Thus, we hope the our project, GNT, can extend the topology of logical network and reduce the coupling between modules.

We still have some unclear parts and we hope you can give us some advices.

Regards,

Kaiyuan

 

----邮件原文----
发件人：Ed Warnicke  <hagbard@gmail.com>
收件人："段凯元" <duankaiyuan@chinamobile.com>
抄　送: project-proposals  <project-proposals@....org>
发送时间：2017-07-21 03:22:04
主题：Re: [Project-proposals] Project Proposal from China Mobile

Good place to start.  You might also cc discuss

Ed

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:51 AM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:

Hi, everyone

Our team from China Mobile are preparing to create two new project proposals recently, But I am wondering is this the right way to send emails to this list if we want to have a discussion about the feasibility and the details before the real proposal.

One proposal is about the Hardware TTP(Typed Table Pattern) and the other one is about GNT(General Network Topology).

If this is the right way, I will give you more details about our plan.

Thanks,

Kaiyuan

 
_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

Hi, Warnicke

Thanks for your reply, I will first share our ideas and the details about the two proposals here:

1, Hardware TTP

Our team have defined a standard TTP(Typed Table Pattern) pipeline ，which is adaptive for Neutron at the Northbound, for the hardware switch. We use OpenFlow on hardware switches to manage the communication for Layer 2&Layer 3, including the communication between physical servers, physical server and VM, server and vRouters. It can also support the security group policy management, QoS and some other basic function.

I know there is already a project related to TTP in the community, but it has not updated and code contribution for a long time and its orientation is also unclear, so we hope to lead a new project. It is ok if you prefer a project integration, but we need to solve the collision before that.

2, GNT(General network topology)

The goal of the project is to provide a unified topological layer, which can monitor different kinds of devices(ovsdb, hardwareVTEP, netconf) and computing resources(physical or virtual machine). This layer will shield the difference of the southbound protocals, make other business modules easily get the overall topo without adaption for different protocals.

Besides the function to extend logical topo through the code itself, we have defined the yang model to provide the possibilty that let business modules for other southbound protocals get data from or write data to the yang model tree.

In addition, this project refers to Neutron of the northbound configuration to analyze the distribution of different kinds of network resources.

The existing topology module is focus on the OpenFlow protocal and no design for the shield of other protocal resources.

Thus, we hope the our project, GNT, can extend the topology of logical network and reduce the coupling between modules.

We still have some unclear parts and we hope you can give us some advices.

Regards,

Kaiyuan

 

----邮件原文----
发件人：Ed Warnicke  <hagbard@gmail.com>
收件人："段凯元" <duankaiyuan@chinamobile.com>
抄　送: project-proposals  <project-proposals@....org>
发送时间：2017-07-21 03:22:04
主题：Re: [Project-proposals] Project Proposal from China Mobile

Good place to start.  You might also cc discuss

Ed

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:51 AM, 段凯元 <duankaiyuan@...> wrote:

Hi, everyone

Our team from China Mobile are preparing to create two new project proposals recently, But I am wondering is this the right way to send emails to this list if we want to have a discussion about the feasibility and the details before the real proposal.

One proposal is about the Hardware TTP(Typed Table Pattern) and the other one is about GNT(General Network Topology).

If this is the right way, I will give you more details about our plan.

Thanks,

Kaiyuan

 
_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals

_______________________________________________
project-proposals mailing list
project-proposals@lists.opendaylight.org
https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/project-proposals