Jump to: navigation, search

Tracking ML2 Subgroup Reviews

Revision as of 04:06, 18 June 2014 by Sukhdev (talk | contribs) (Under Review)


Here are tables for tracking the status of the specs related to ML2 in Juno: --Banix (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The guideline for updating this wiki is at the end of this page.

Under Review

Title Spec/BP Owner Priority Status R1 R2 R3 R4 C1 C2 C3
Add spec for ML2 mechanism driver for SDN-VE spec banix 3 (Low) Review yamamoto irenab - - - - -
VDP support in OVS Neutron Agent spec nlahouti 3 (Low) Review yamamoto
+1
Sukhdev
+1
- - - - -
ML2 Type drivers refactor to allow extensiblity spec asomya 3 (Low) Review Sukhdev
+1
yamamoto shivharis banix rkukura - -
physical-network-topology extension spec spec yamahata 3 (Low) Review Sukhdev yamamoto asomya banix
-1
- - -
GW API: L2 bridging API - Piece 1: Basic use cases spec racha-ben-ali 3 (Low) Review - - - - - - -
Neutron QoS API Extension spec sc68cal 3 (Low) Review irenab - - - - - -
Allow partial specification of Provider Network attributes spec zzelle 3 (Low) Review Sukhdev
+1
- - - rkukura - -
Open vSwitch-based Security Groups: OVS FirewallDriver spec asadoughi 3 (Low) Review - - - - - - -
Support for extensions in ML2 Mechanism Drivers spec BP nlahouti 3 (Low) Review banix shivharis mrohon yamamato rkukura
-1
mestery
-2
-
Neutron External Ports spec BP kevinbenton 3 (Low) Review - - - - - - -
VLAN aware VMs spec Erik Moe 3 (Low) Review - - - - - - -
ML2 mechanism driver for Cisco UCS Manager spec BP sadasu 3 (Low) Review Sukhdev
-1
irenab - - rkukura SumitN -
ofagent l2pop support spec yamamoto 3 (Low) Blocked - - - - - - -
ofagent: port monitoring w/o ovsdb accesses spec yamamoto 3 (Low) Review banix
+1
- - - Nachi
+2
- -
Arista L3 Router Service Plugin spec sukhdev 3 (Low) Review banix
+1
- - - mastery
+2
- -
Linuxbridge QoS Support spec oda-g 3 (Low) Review - - - - - - -
Provider Segment Support for Cisco Nexus Switches spec rcurran 3 (Low) Review - - - - - - -
Layer 3 Service Plugin for Cisco Nexus Switches spec rcurran 3 (Low) Review Sukhdev
-1
- - - - - -
ML2 Cisco Nexus Mechanism Driver VxLAN Gateway Support spec rcurran 3 (Low) Review Sukhdev
-1
- - - - - -
API Extension for l2-gateway spec yamahata - Review - - - - - - -
ML2 OVS mechanism driver support portsecurity extension spec yamahata - Review - - - - - - -

Merged

Title Spec/BP Owner Code R1 R2 R3 R4 C1 C2 C3
ML2 Mechanism Driver for Cisco DFA spec nlahouti - - - - - - - -
ML2 Mechanism Driver for the Cisco APIC spec HenryG - - - - - - - -
ML2 Mechanism Driver for SR-IOV NIC switching spec irenab - - - - - - - -
Neutron OVS based Distributed Virtual Router spec swami - - - - - - - -
L3 router Service plugin for the Cisco APIC spec asomya - - - - - - - -
Freescale SDN Mechanism Driver spec trinaths code yamamoto - - - mestery - amotoki

Planned

Title Spec/BP Owner Comment
ML2 Hierarchical Port Binding rkukura Under development
Modular L2 Agent banix Under development
ofagent: sub driver BP yamamoto probably some overlap with modular l2 agent

Guide

  • The owner of a given spec is responsible for keeping the corresponding row in this table up to date
  • A reviewer can add her name to the table when she reviews a spec but ultimately the spec owner needs to make sure the information is up to date
  • Priority
    • Use the following strings for priority: "1 (High)", "2 (Med)", "3 (Low)" so we can easily sort the table based on the priority if need be
    • If not sure, insert the spec with priority set to 3 (Low)
    • The priority of specs were decided to be defined as follows (IRC Log):
      • So mestery suggests vendor-specific drivers should be at low priority, consistent with vendor plugins and vendor service drivers
      • The ML2 team can identify 2 or 3 BPs to treat as high priority
      • These need to be of general community interest, and really important to complete for Juno
      • And we can identify several more BPs to treat as medium priority, which also should be of general community interest

Other Considerations

  • Should we do the same for regular (not specs) neutron reviews? Will that be too much? We can wait and see if the current table will be used and if it will make the review process any better and then decide.
  • Any changes we can make to Launchpad and/or Gerrit review that will make the tracking of the specs easier and that will make using a table like this unnecessary?