206f5738fe
Change-Id: I675452fcc43e778f74bdf4bf5615c100d72ce8bf
469 lines
15 KiB
ReStructuredText
469 lines
15 KiB
ReStructuredText
..
|
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
|
License.
|
|
|
|
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
|
|
|
==========================================
|
|
Example Spec - The title of your blueprint
|
|
==========================================
|
|
|
|
Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:
|
|
|
|
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/octavia/+spec/example
|
|
|
|
Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything? A single paragraph of
|
|
prose that operators can understand.
|
|
|
|
Some notes about using this template:
|
|
|
|
* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
|
|
|
|
* Please wrap text at 80 columns.
|
|
|
|
* The filename in the git repository should match the launchpad URL, for
|
|
example a URL of: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/octavia/+spec/awesome-thing
|
|
should be named awesome-thing.rst
|
|
|
|
* Please do not delete any of the sections in this template. If you have
|
|
nothing to say for a whole section, just write: None
|
|
|
|
* For help with syntax, see http://sphinx-doc.org/rest.html
|
|
|
|
* To test out your formatting, build the docs using tox, or see:
|
|
http://rst.ninjs.org
|
|
|
|
* If you would like to provide a diagram with your spec, text representations
|
|
are preferred. http://asciiflow.com/ is a very nice tool to assist with
|
|
making ascii diagrams. blockdiag is another tool. These are described below.
|
|
For more complicated diagrams that need "real" graphics, yet still should
|
|
be in the git revision control system, GraphViz .dot files are acceptable.
|
|
If you require an image (screenshot) for your BP, attaching that to the BP
|
|
and checking it in is also accepted. However, text representations are
|
|
preferred.
|
|
|
|
* Diagram examples
|
|
|
|
asciiflow::
|
|
|
|
+----------+ +-----------+ +----------+
|
|
| A | | B | | C |
|
|
| +-----+ +--------+ |
|
|
+----------+ +-----------+ +----------+
|
|
|
|
blockdiag
|
|
|
|
.. blockdiag::
|
|
|
|
blockdiag sample {
|
|
a -> b -> c;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
actdiag
|
|
|
|
.. actdiag::
|
|
|
|
actdiag {
|
|
write -> convert -> image
|
|
lane user {
|
|
label = "User"
|
|
write [label = "Writing reST"];
|
|
image [label = "Get diagram IMAGE"];
|
|
}
|
|
lane actdiag {
|
|
convert [label = "Convert reST to Image"];
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
nwdiag
|
|
|
|
.. nwdiag::
|
|
|
|
nwdiag {
|
|
network dmz {
|
|
address = "210.x.x.x/24"
|
|
|
|
web01 [address = "210.x.x.1"];
|
|
web02 [address = "210.x.x.2"];
|
|
}
|
|
network internal {
|
|
address = "172.x.x.x/24";
|
|
|
|
web01 [address = "172.x.x.1"];
|
|
web02 [address = "172.x.x.2"];
|
|
db01;
|
|
db02;
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
seqdiag
|
|
|
|
.. seqdiag::
|
|
|
|
seqdiag {
|
|
browser -> webserver [label = "GET /index.html"];
|
|
browser <-- webserver;
|
|
browser -> webserver [label = "POST /blog/comment"];
|
|
webserver -> database [label = "INSERT comment"];
|
|
webserver <-- database;
|
|
browser <-- webserver;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
graphviz
|
|
|
|
.. graphviz::
|
|
|
|
digraph G {
|
|
label="Sample Graph"
|
|
|
|
subgraph cluster_0 {
|
|
style=filled;
|
|
color=lightgrey;
|
|
node [style=filled,color=white];
|
|
a0 -> a1 -> a2 -> a3;
|
|
label = "process #1";
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
subgraph cluster_1 {
|
|
node [style=filled];
|
|
b0 -> b1 -> b2 -> b3;
|
|
label = "process #2";
|
|
color=blue
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
start -> a0;
|
|
start -> b0;
|
|
a1 -> b3;
|
|
b2 -> a3;
|
|
a3 -> a0;
|
|
a3 -> end;
|
|
b3 -> end;
|
|
|
|
start [shape=Mdiamond];
|
|
end [shape=Msquare];
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
graphviz (external file)
|
|
|
|
.. graphviz:: example.dot
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem description
|
|
===================
|
|
|
|
A detailed description of the problem:
|
|
|
|
* For a new feature this might be use cases. Ensure you are clear about the
|
|
actors in each use case: End User vs Deployer
|
|
|
|
* For a major reworking of something existing it would describe the
|
|
problems in that feature that are being addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed change
|
|
===============
|
|
|
|
Here is where you cover the change you propose to make in detail. How do you
|
|
propose to solve this problem?
|
|
|
|
If this is one part of a larger effort make it clear where this piece ends. In
|
|
other words, what's the scope of this effort?
|
|
|
|
Alternatives
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
What other ways could we do this thing? Why aren't we using those? This doesn't
|
|
have to be a full literature review, but it should demonstrate that thought has
|
|
been put into why the proposed solution is an appropriate one.
|
|
|
|
Data model impact
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
Changes which require modifications to the data model often have a wider impact
|
|
on the system. The community often has strong opinions on how the data model
|
|
should be evolved, from both a functional and performance perspective. It is
|
|
therefore important to capture and gain agreement as early as possible on any
|
|
proposed changes to the data model.
|
|
|
|
Questions which need to be addressed by this section include:
|
|
|
|
* What new data objects and/or database schema changes is this going to
|
|
require?
|
|
|
|
* What database migrations will accompany this change.
|
|
|
|
* How will the initial set of new data objects be generated, for example if you
|
|
need to take into account existing instances, or modify other existing data
|
|
describe how that will work.
|
|
|
|
REST API impact
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
Octavia includes several internal APIs (all of which should be versioned).
|
|
In defining how API(s) are affected by this change, make sure to
|
|
clearly indicate which API(s) specifically are being altered, which version
|
|
of the API(s) are being altered, and other pertinent details as described
|
|
below.
|
|
|
|
While we are not using Neutron's attribute map facility since Octavia is
|
|
not Neutron, following the tried-and-true guidelines Neutron uses around
|
|
API changes is a good idea, including defining attribute map tables. For
|
|
reference:
|
|
|
|
For each API resource to be implemented using Neutron's attribute map
|
|
facility (see the neutron.api.v2.attributes), describe the resource
|
|
collection and specify the name, type, and other essential details of
|
|
each new or modified attribute. A table similar to the following may
|
|
be used:
|
|
|
|
+----------+-------+---------+---------+------------+--------------+
|
|
|Attribute |Type |Access |Default |Validation/ |Description |
|
|
|Name | | |Value |Conversion | |
|
|
+==========+=======+=========+=========+============+==============+
|
|
|id |string |RO, all |generated|N/A |identity |
|
|
| |(UUID) | | | | |
|
|
+----------+-------+---------+---------+------------+--------------+
|
|
|name |string |RW, all |'' |string |human-readable|
|
|
| | | | | |name |
|
|
+----------+-------+---------+---------+------------+--------------+
|
|
|color |string |RW, admin|'red' |'red', |color |
|
|
| | | | |'yellow', or|indicating |
|
|
| | | | |'green' |state |
|
|
+----------+-------+---------+---------+------------+--------------+
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the other example of the table using csv-table
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. csv-table:: CSVTable
|
|
:header: Attribute Name,Type,Access,Default Value,Validation Conversion,Description
|
|
|
|
id,string (UUID),"RO, all",generated,N/A,identity
|
|
name,string,"RW, all","''",string,human-readable name
|
|
color,string,"RW, admin",red,"'red', 'yellow' or 'green'",color indicating state
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each API method which is either added or changed that does not use
|
|
Neutron's attribute map facility should have the following:
|
|
|
|
* Specification for the method
|
|
|
|
* A description of what the method does suitable for use in
|
|
user documentation
|
|
|
|
* Method type (POST/PUT/GET/DELETE)
|
|
|
|
* Normal http response code(s)
|
|
|
|
* Expected error http response code(s)
|
|
|
|
* A description for each possible error code should be included
|
|
describing semantic errors which can cause it such as
|
|
inconsistent parameters supplied to the method, or when an
|
|
instance is not in an appropriate state for the request to
|
|
succeed. Errors caused by syntactic problems covered by the JSON
|
|
schema definition do not need to be included.
|
|
|
|
* URL for the resource
|
|
|
|
* Parameters which can be passed via the url
|
|
|
|
* JSON schema definition for the body data if allowed
|
|
|
|
* JSON schema definition for the response data if any
|
|
|
|
* Example use case including typical API samples for both data supplied
|
|
by the caller and the response
|
|
|
|
* Discuss any API policy changes, and discuss what things a deployer needs to
|
|
think about when defining their API policy. This is in reference to the
|
|
policy.json file.
|
|
|
|
Note that the schema should be defined as restrictively as
|
|
possible. Parameters which are required should be marked as such and
|
|
only under exceptional circumstances should additional parameters
|
|
which are not defined in the schema be permitted (eg
|
|
additionaProperties should be False).
|
|
|
|
Reuse of existing predefined parameter types such as regexps for
|
|
passwords and user defined names is highly encouraged.
|
|
|
|
Security impact
|
|
---------------
|
|
|
|
Describe any potential security impact on the system. Some of the items to
|
|
consider include:
|
|
|
|
* Does this change touch sensitive data such as tokens, keys, or user data?
|
|
|
|
* Does this change alter the API in a way that may impact security, such as
|
|
a new way to access sensitive information or a new way to login?
|
|
|
|
* Does this change involve cryptography or hashing?
|
|
|
|
* Does this change require the use of sudo or any elevated privileges?
|
|
|
|
* Does this change involve using or parsing user-provided data? This could
|
|
be directly at the API level or indirectly such as changes to a cache layer.
|
|
|
|
* Can this change enable a resource exhaustion attack, such as allowing a
|
|
single API interaction to consume significant server resources? Some examples
|
|
of this include launching subprocesses for each connection, or entity
|
|
expansion attacks in XML.
|
|
|
|
For more detailed guidance, please see the OpenStack Security Guidelines as
|
|
a reference (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Security/Guidelines). These
|
|
guidelines are a work in progress and are designed to help you identify
|
|
security best practices. For further information, feel free to reach out
|
|
to the OpenStack Security Group at openstack-security@lists.openstack.org.
|
|
|
|
Notifications impact
|
|
--------------------
|
|
|
|
Please specify any changes to notifications. Be that an extra notification,
|
|
changes to an existing notification, or removing a notification.
|
|
|
|
Other end user impact
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
Aside from the API, are there other ways a user will interact with this
|
|
feature? Keep in mind that 'user' in this context could mean either tenant or
|
|
operator.
|
|
|
|
* Does this change have an impact on python-neutronclient? What does the user
|
|
interface there look like?
|
|
|
|
Performance Impact
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
Describe any potential performance impact on the system, for example
|
|
how often will new code be called, and is there a major change to the calling
|
|
pattern of existing code.
|
|
|
|
Examples of things to consider here include:
|
|
|
|
* A periodic task might look like a small addition but if it calls conductor or
|
|
another service the load is multiplied by the number of nodes in the system.
|
|
|
|
* A small change in a utility function or a commonly used decorator can have a
|
|
large impacts on performance.
|
|
|
|
* Calls which result in a database queries (whether direct or via conductor)
|
|
can have a profound impact on performance when called in critical sections
|
|
of the code.
|
|
|
|
* Will the change include any locking, and if so what considerations are there
|
|
on holding the lock?
|
|
|
|
Other deployer impact
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
Discuss things that will affect how you deploy and configure OpenStack
|
|
that have not already been mentioned, such as:
|
|
|
|
* What config options are being added? Should they be more generic than
|
|
proposed (for example a flag that other hypervisor drivers might want to
|
|
implement as well)? Are the default values ones which will work well in
|
|
real deployments?
|
|
|
|
* Is this a change that takes immediate effect after its merged, or is it
|
|
something that has to be explicitly enabled?
|
|
|
|
* If this change is a new binary, how would it be deployed?
|
|
|
|
* Please state anything that those doing continuous deployment, or those
|
|
upgrading from the previous release, need to be aware of. Also describe
|
|
any plans to deprecate configuration values or features. For example, if we
|
|
change the directory name that instances are stored in, how do we handle
|
|
instance directories created before the change landed? Do we move them? Do
|
|
we have a special case in the code? Do we assume that the operator will
|
|
recreate all the instances in their cloud?
|
|
|
|
Developer impact
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
Discuss things that will affect other developers working on OpenStack,
|
|
such as:
|
|
|
|
* If the blueprint proposes a change to the API, discussion of how other
|
|
plugins would implement the feature is required.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Implementation
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
Assignee(s)
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
Who is leading the writing of the code? Or is this a blueprint where you're
|
|
throwing it out there to see who picks it up?
|
|
|
|
If more than one person is working on the implementation, please designate the
|
|
primary author and contact.
|
|
|
|
Primary assignee:
|
|
<launchpad-id or None>
|
|
|
|
Other contributors:
|
|
<launchpad-id or None>
|
|
|
|
Work Items
|
|
----------
|
|
|
|
Work items or tasks -- break the feature up into the things that need to be
|
|
done to implement it. Those parts might end up being done by different people,
|
|
but we're mostly trying to understand the timeline for implementation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dependencies
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
* Include specific references to specs and/or blueprints in octavia, or in
|
|
other projects, that this one either depends on or is related to.
|
|
|
|
* If this requires functionality of another project that is not currently used
|
|
by Octavia document that fact.
|
|
|
|
* Does this feature require any new library dependencies or code otherwise not
|
|
included in OpenStack? Or does it depend on a specific version of library?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Testing
|
|
=======
|
|
|
|
Please discuss how the change will be tested. We especially want to know what
|
|
tempest tests will be added. It is assumed that unit test coverage will be
|
|
added so that doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly, but discussion of why
|
|
you think unit tests are sufficient and we don't need to add more tempest
|
|
tests would need to be included.
|
|
|
|
Is this untestable in gate given current limitations (specific hardware /
|
|
software configurations available)? If so, are there mitigation plans (3rd
|
|
party testing, gate enhancements, etc).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Documentation Impact
|
|
====================
|
|
|
|
What is the impact on the docs team of this change? Some changes might require
|
|
donating resources to the docs team to have the documentation updated. Don't
|
|
repeat details discussed above, but please reference them here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
Please add any useful references here. You are not required to have any
|
|
reference. Moreover, this specification should still make sense when your
|
|
references are unavailable. Examples of what you could include are:
|
|
|
|
* Links to mailing list or IRC discussions
|
|
|
|
* Links to notes from a summit session
|
|
|
|
* Links to relevant research, if appropriate
|
|
|
|
* Related specifications as appropriate (e.g. link any vendor documentation)
|
|
|
|
* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to
|