[OpenStack Foundation] OpenStack core and interoperability

Sean Dague sean at dague.net
Thu Oct 31 22:21:12 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.

As an example approach on self-certification, this is how OSDL/Linux 
Foundation handled/handles Carrier Grade Linux. CGL was basically a 
checklist, and you had to self register how you provided the features in 
question. Those documents were then posted publicly - 

The theory being that what this really did was ensure disclosure, and 
give enough information that customers could make their own decisions 
about how required features were provided.

There was no judgement call made by the committee about whether the way 
a group implemented a feature was "good enough" or not, but just an 
assumption that disclosure at that level of detail would be enough sun 
light to help convergence on it's own.

Doing something like this in OpenStack would be different, for sure. CGL 
was really about piecing together functionality from the kernel, and 
user space tooling, to ensure some common base characteristics. OSDL 
didn't create this code. But it's at least a pretty concrete example of 
what self-certification could look like, warts and all.


Sean Dague

More information about the Foundation mailing list