On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 08:37:59AM -0500, Christian Hopps wrote: > > Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > The 'rfc8199-' part in some of the tags does look to me like an > > > > attempt to scope 'service', 'element' etc. If this is being used, you > > > > will see that labels will use ad-hoc forms of scoping. The networking > > > > vocabulary is small and reuse of terms with different meanings in > > > > different contexts is common. If scopes are not needed, then I would > > > > argue 'rfc8199-' is not needed. Or it is needed and then it would be > > > > useful as well for ietf-qos and friends. > > > > > > RFC8199 defines an element vs service. Given those definitions these 2 > > > tags seem USEFUL. So what do you suggest we call these tags to remove > > > your "adding scope" objection? Would "ietf:module-class-element" and > > > "ietf:module-class-service"? and reference RFC8199 in the doc/registry, > > > clear your objection? > > > > I simply asked why we are inconsistent with the initial tags that we > > allocate. Others will want to allocate tags in the future, what do we > > tell them how to do it? If the idea is to go with a true flat > > namespace, then simply remove 'rfc8199-' from the tags and we have > > ietf:element, ietf:service, ietf:standard, ietf:vendor, ietf:user, > > which lines up with ietf:routing and the like. > > But, ietf:element is too generic to assign the meaning "RFC8199 module > classification of element" which is what "rfc8199-element" is supposed to be. > It'll need to be something like "ietf:module-class-element" or > "ietf:an-rfc8199-elemenet" or nothing I guess.
Seems arbitrary what we call too generic and what not. To me, ietf:protocol is also quite generic. > I have this suspicion that if it had been "ietf:an-rfc8199-element" you might > not have brought up this introducing scope stuff. What if there was no "-" > symbol used (i.e., "ietf:rfc8199element"? You may miss the point I am making. > The normative text says that we are defining no structure outside the prefix > (i.e., it's flat). I believe what your saying is that if you ignore this > normative text and just look at the "ietf:rfc8199-element" tags by > themselves, one might imagine some meaning of scope. Do we need to repeat or > reword the fact we are defining no structure beyond the prefix to make this > more clear so people don't start imagining structures where we've normatively > said they don't exist? > You apparently use rfc8199- to scope 'element'... > > > Please help clear your objections here as we're in the final stages of > > > publication, and raising objections now I think should be accompanied > > > with suggestions on how to clear them as well. > > > > I am not raising objections. I asked a question. And it is fine to be > > told that I should shut up because we are past WG last call and the WG > > likes what we have (and the WG or the IETF we will later figure out > > what lets say ietf:protocol is really good for or whether scopes like > > 'rfc8199-' are a good or bad idea). > > Your opinion rightly carries a lot of weight in this group, and so your > questions need to be addressed even though they are coming late in the > process. > Not true. I am happy to be shut down. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
