diff --git a/doc/source/index.rst b/doc/source/index.rst index f83e597..1661551 100644 --- a/doc/source/index.rst +++ b/doc/source/index.rst @@ -28,6 +28,14 @@ Liberty approved specs: specs/liberty/* +Mitaka approved specs: + +.. toctree:: + :glob: + :maxdepth: 1 + + specs/mitaka/* + ================== Indices and tables diff --git a/specs/mitaka/fake.rst b/specs/mitaka/fake.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3e7ad92 --- /dev/null +++ b/specs/mitaka/fake.rst @@ -0,0 +1,368 @@ +.. + 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/ceilometer/+spec/example +https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-ceilometerclient/+spec/example + +Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything? A single paragraph of +free-form text that other developers and operators can understand. + +Some notes about using this template: + +* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template. + +* Please wrap text at 79 columns. + +* The filename in the git repository should match the launchpad URL, for + example a URL of: + + https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+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, ascii diagrams are + required. http://asciiflow.com/ is a very nice tool to assist with making + ascii diagrams. The reason for this is that the tool used to review specs is + based purely on plain text. Plain text will allow review to proceed without + having to look at additional files which can not be viewed in Gerrit. It + will also allow inline feedback on the diagram itself. + +* If your specification proposes any changes to the Ceilometer REST API such + as changing parameters which can be returned or accepted, or even + the semantics of what happens when a client calls into the API, then + you should add the APIImpact flag to the commit message. Specifications with + the APIImpact flag can be found with the following query:: + + https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/ceilometer-specs+message:apiimpact,n,z + + +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 Cloud Operator + +* For a major reworking of something existing it would describe the + problems in that feature that are being addressed. In this case, any + potential migration issues must be called out upfront. + +* For a major functional area not currently addressed within the + OpenStack Telemetry program, ensure you describe why you think + this is appropriate given our project mandate and mission statement. + +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? If this larger effort may span +several release cycles, state this explicitly. + +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. Especially if +there's a history in the community of divided opinion on this issue. + +Data model impact +----------------- + +Changes which require modifications to the data model often have a wider impact +on the system and its performance, or lack thereof. 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, treating the SQLAlchemy + and NoSQL cases separately. + +* Will this add to the on-the-fly data massaging cruft that we've accreted + over time? + +* 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 +--------------- + +Each API method which is either added or changed 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 + + * example JSON fragments for the body data if appropriate + + * example JSON fragments 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 policy changes, and discuss what things a deployer needs to + think about when defining their policy. + +* Discuss whether this change should be backported to any currently supported + API versions (e.g. to v2 when this is put on the deprecation path in favor + of a new v3 API) + +Security impact +--------------- + +Describe any potential security impact on the system. The principal issue +to consider is: + +* Does this change impact on the direct or indirect visibility of data + in the metering store in a way that doesn't respect full segregation + between non-admin tenants. + +An example of such a concern would the on_behalf_of mechanism in the +alarm evaluation logic. + +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. + +Pipeline impact +--------------- + +Please specify any changes to the metering pipeline, from the data acquisition +agents, via the publication conduit(s), through to the database dispatch layer. +For example: + +* Is yet another agent required to host the data acquisition pollsters or + notification handlers? + +* If accommodated in an existing agent, is the scaling of that agent impacted? + +* Is explicit configuration of the source and/or transformations required + in the pipeline.yaml? + +* Is the typical cadence of data acquisition likely in practice to be unusually + frequent or infrequent? + +* Is an explicit resource discovery extension required to retrieve target + resources? + +* Is AMQP the appropriate publication conduit for these data? + +* Is any change required to the metering message signature verification + used by the collector? + +Other end user impact +--------------------- + +Aside from the API, are there other ways a user will interact with this +feature? + +* If a service-side feature, does this change also have an impact on + python-ceilometerclient? What does the user interface there look like? + +* Should this feature be exposed via the Horizon metering dashboard? + +Performance/Scalability Impacts +------------------------------- + +Describe any potential performance or scaling impact on the system, considering +for example: + +* The volume of new metering data generated, and the knock-on impact + of this on the latency of the publication conduit and database dispatch + layer. + +* Whether any new data retention policies are required. + +* How any new APIs and/or storage driver methods will perform when scaled + over very large datasets. + +* Whether any explicit performance testing would be advisable to validate + the new feature, either at the PoC stage, and/or in its final form. + + +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? + +* How is the storage driver feature parity matrix impacted? Traditionally + new features were often only supported initially in the MongoDB and + SQLAlchemy drivers, leaving the more niche drivers to catch up later. + Though this is established custom and practice, you must explicitly + state which drivers you intend to address in the first cut. + +* 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? Will the puppet + or chef recipes in wide use require extension to accommodate this feature. + +* 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 pipeline.yaml format, how do we handle pipelines created before + the change landed? Do we transform them? Do we continue to support the + old format in a deprecated form? + +* Please state anything that those doing downstream distro-oriented + packaging need to be aware of. For example, is a new service being added, + or many new transitive dependencies pulled in, or a new feature that is + effectively optional and hence suited to separate packaging. + +Developer impact +---------------- + +Discuss things that will affect other developers working on OpenStack, +such as: + +* If the blueprint proposes a change to the internal storage driver or + hypervisor inspector APIs, discussion of how existing implementations + of these APIs 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: + + +Other contributors: + + +Ongoing maintainer: + + +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. + + +Future lifecycle +================ + +The Telemetry program is explicitly not interested in "code drops", where +some new niche feature is landed, but then ongoing active maintainership +is not provided by either the original author and/or an obviously sustainable +user community. You must address how you envisage the ongoing maintenance +of the feature being handled through the next two release cycles. + + +Dependencies +============ + +* Include specific references to specs and/or blueprints under the Telemetry + program, or in other programs, that the current blueprint one either depends + on or is related to. + +* If this requires functionality of another program that is not currently + used by Telemetry (such as a new or extended library provided by the Oslo + program), document that fact. + +* Does this feature require any new external dependencies or code otherwise not + included in OpenStack? Or does it depend on a specific version of library? Is + this library already packaged for the major distros (i.e. derivatives of + Debian and Fedora). + + +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 and scenario test coverage +will be added so that doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly, but discussion +of why you think unit/scenario tests are sufficient and we don't need to add +more tempest testcases would need to be included. + +Is this untestable in the upstream 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, appropriately distilled or summarized + +* Related specifications as appropriate (e.g. if it's calling out to a REST + API exposed by another OpenStack service, link to that API definition) + +* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to + diff --git a/specs/mitaka/template.rst b/specs/mitaka/template.rst new file mode 120000 index 0000000..dc9373e --- /dev/null +++ b/specs/mitaka/template.rst @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +../template.rst \ No newline at end of file