From 1ce9fdfca431b528d66704a26fdf9904e325a894 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Mark D. Gray" Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 14:39:06 +0100 Subject: specs: High Priority Traffic Path Introduce the initial template for the "High Priority Traffic Path" spec. This patch only populates: * Title * URL to the wiki page * Links at the bottom Change-Id: I8ee220b837af4a954a1c79e2d29c569cf5b36fd6 Signed-off-by: Mark D. Gray Reviewed-by: Billy O'Mahony Reviewed-by: Tom Herbert --- specs/High-Priority-Traffic-Path.rst | 275 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 275 insertions(+) create mode 100644 specs/High-Priority-Traffic-Path.rst diff --git a/specs/High-Priority-Traffic-Path.rst b/specs/High-Priority-Traffic-Path.rst new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8dfd2ae --- /dev/null +++ b/specs/High-Priority-Traffic-Path.rst @@ -0,0 +1,275 @@ +.. + This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported + License. + + http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode + +========================================== +High Priority Traffic Path +========================================== + +https://wiki.opnfv.org/display/ovsnfv/OVSFV+Requirement+-+High+Priority+Traffic+Path + +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: + + +Other contributors: + + +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 + +- http://lists.opnfv.org/pipermail/opnfv-tech-discuss/2015-December/007193.html +- http://ircbot.wl.linuxfoundation.org/meetings/opnfv-ovsnfv/2016/opnfv-ovsnfv.2016-03-07-13.01.html + +* Links to relevant research, if appropriate + +- https://wiki.opnfv.org/download/attachments/5046510/qos_mechanisms.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1459187636000&api=v2 + +* 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 + * - Colorado + - Introduced -- cgit 1.2.3-korg