[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability

Monty Taylor mordred at inaugust.com
Thu Oct 31 21:56:20 UTC 2013

On 10/31/2013 05:22 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 10:57 -0600, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> I don't see compatible as being any easier for us to put in place than
>> OpenStack. Both require us to make the same high level decision about
>> which services need to be either run or implemented. The difference is
>> in enforcement or assertion. I think we can do both.
> How would we express which code is required and how would providers
> (self-)certify that they are running that code?
> Do we require zero modifications to the required code? If modifications
> are allowed, how do we express what level of modifications? Or do we
> just make it a good faith "we haven't made any fundamental changes"
> assertion?
> Are providers required to just run the required code, or actually route
> all user requests through that code? Are they allowed they put other
> code between the user and the required code?
> Or do we require providers to submit a report of what upstream code
> they're running and we (a human, on behalf of the Foundation) makes a
> judgement call based on guidelines as to whether this is a faithful
> implementation? If we go this route - i.e. making it a question of a
> judgement call - how do we make those judgement calls totally fair and
> transparent? We certainly don't want accusations of us rejecting a
> provider because we don't like them.
> The "OpenStack compatible" thing *is* either - the self-certification
> process is "run these tests, you must pass them all". Totally
> unambiguous.

Legal agreements are ambiguous. It drives us tech folks BATTY. But
that's one of the reasons we have lawyers, because legal agreements are
ambiguous and require human judgement.

I think we start with what you mentioned earlier, a good faith statement
of "you have to run the code" - and not try to spell out specifics.
Smell tests are often fine here. Is Rackspace running keystone? No. We
all know that. Are Rackspace and HP running Cinder? Different story -
AIUI, they are running Cinder with custom plugins. Are they running
Nova? Yes. Absolutely. Do they carry local patches? Probably.

I don't think think this is the type of criteria that a gating test can
be developed for, or even a check list. I think it's simply a legal
agreement, that the company in question agrees that, in order to use the
mark "An OpenStack Cloud" or whatever, that they will actually run
OpenStack itself.

More information about the Foundation mailing list