specs: Enable gerrit build of specs documentation

This patch allows gerrit to parse the spec
documentation and publishes to artifacts on merge.

Change-Id: Ib9d5b1229975d2b9819320af22973008885c4f58
Signed-off-by: Mark D. Gray <mark.d.gray@intel.com>

1 files changed, 272 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/design/specs/template.rst b/docs/design/specs/template.rst
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cc5dfd8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/design/specs/template.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+..
+ 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 OPNFV wiki page description:
+
+https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/ovsnfv/OVSFV+Requirement+-+Example
+
+Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything? A single paragraph of
+prose that operators can understand. The title and this first paragraph
+should be used as the subject line and body of the commit message
+respectively.
+
+Some notes about the process:
+
+* The aim of this document is first to define the problem we need to solve,
+  and second agree the overall approach to solve that problem.
+
+* This is not intended to be extensive documentation for a new feature.
+
+* You should aim to get your spec approved before writing your code.
+  While you are free to write prototypes and code before getting your spec
+  approved, its possible that the outcome of the spec review process leads
+  you towards a fundamentally different solution than you first envisaged.
+
+* But, API changes are held to a much higher level of scrutiny.
+  As soon as an API change merges, we must assume it could be in production
+  somewhere, and as such, we then need to support that API change forever.
+  To avoid getting that wrong, we do want lots of details about API changes
+  upfront.
+
+Some notes about using this template:
+
+* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
+
+* Please wrap text at 79 columns.
+
+* 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 sphinx
+
+* 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.
+
+Problem description
+===================
+
+A detailed description of the problem. What problem is this blueprint
+addressing?
+
+Use Cases
+---------
+
+What use cases does this address? What impact on actors does this change have?
+Ensure you are clear about the actors in each use case: Developer, End User,
+Deployer etc.
+
+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?
+
+At this point, if you would like to just get feedback on the problem and
+proposed change, you can stop here and post this for review to get
+preliminary feedback. If so please say:
+Posting to get preliminary feedback on the scope of this spec.
+
+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.
+
+OVSDB schema 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?
+
+User interface impact
+---------------------
+
+Each user interface that is either added, changed or removed should have the
+following:
+
+* Specification for the user interface
+
+* Example use case including typical examples for both data supplied
+  by the caller and the response
+
+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 interface in a way that may impact security, such as
+  a new way to access sensitive information?
+
+* 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 interaction to consume significant server resources?
+
+Other end user impact
+---------------------
+
+Aside from the user interfaces, are there other ways a user will interact with this
+feature?
+
+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:
+
+* 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 Open vSwitch
+that have not already been mentioned, such as:
+
+* What config options are being added? Should they be more generic than
+  proposed? 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.
+
+Developer impact
+----------------
+
+Discuss things that will affect other developers working on Open vSwitch,
+such as:
+
+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:
+  <email address>
+
+Other contributors:
+  <email address>
+
+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
+============
+
+* If this requires functionality of another project that is not currently used
+  document that fact.
+
+* Does this feature require any new library dependencies or code otherwise not
+  included in Open vSwitch? Or does it depend on a specific version of library?
+
+
+Testing
+=======
+
+Please discuss the important scenarios needed to test here, as well as
+specific edge cases we should be ensuring work correctly. For each
+scenario please specify if this requires specialized hardware.
+
+Please discuss how the change will be tested: Open vSwitch unit tests, VSPERF
+performance tests, Yardstick tests, etc.
+
+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
+====================
+
+Which audiences are affected most by this change, and which documentation
+should be updated because of this change? Don't
+repeat details discussed above, but reference them here in the context of
+documentation for multiple audiences. If a config option
+changes or is deprecated, note here that the documentation needs to be updated
+to reflect this specification's change.
+
+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 relevant research, if appropriate
+
+* Related specifications as appropriate
+
+* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to
+
+
+History
+=======
+
+Optional section intended to be used each time the spec
+is updated to describe new design, API or any database schema
+updated. Useful to let reader understand what's happened along the
+time.
+
+.. list-table:: Revisions
+   :header-rows: 1
+
+   * - Release Name
+     - Description
+   * - 2.x
+     - Introduced