Ivar, Of course and this is why we are having this conversation, in order to merge our different opinions.
Edgar From: Ivar Lazzaro <ivarlazz...@gmail.com<mailto:ivarlazz...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 1:41 PM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way forward Hi Edgar, Actually, I think that other reviewers saw that name clash, and still thought it was ok to use the same terminology in such a different context. BP reviews are a community effort right? So of course someones' idea may be different from yours. Regards, Ivar. On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>> wrote: Basically, I am admitting that I did not catch in my review the part of the endpoint term that Jay was pointing out. Edgar On 8/6/14, 11:32 AM, "Sumit Naiksatam" <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com<mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com>> wrote: >Not sure what you are talking about? You claim now that you had >suggestion which was not considered, yet you +2'ed a patch, by stating >that "All looks good to me!". > >On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Edgar Magana ><edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>> >wrote: >> That is the beauty of the open source projects, there is always a >>smartest >> reviewer catching out the facts that you don¹t. >> >> Edgar >> >> On 8/6/14, 10:55 AM, "Sumit Naiksatam" >> <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com<mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >>>Edgar, you seemed to have +2'ed this patch on July 2nd [1]: >>> >>>" >>>Edgar Magana >>>Jul 2 8:42 AM >>> >>>Patch Set 13: Code-Review+2 >>> >>>All looks good to me! I am not approving yet because Nachi was also >>>reviewing this code and I would like to see his opinion as well. >>>" >>> >>>That would suggest that you were happy with what was in it. I don't >>>see anything in the review comments that suggests otherwise. >>> >>>[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/95900/ >>> >>>On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Edgar Magana >>><edgar.mag...@workday.com<mailto:edgar.mag...@workday.com>> >>>wrote: >>>> This is the consequence of a proposal that is not following the >>>>standardized >>>> terminology (IETF - RFC) for any Policy-based System: >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3198 >>>> >>>> Well, I did bring this point during the Hong Kong Summit but as you >>>>can see >>>> my comments were totally ignored: >>>> >>>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZbOFxAoibZbJmDWx1oOrOsDcov6Cuom5aaB >>>>Ir >>>>upCD9E/edit >>>> >>>> I clearly saw this kind of issues coming. Let me quote myself what I >>>> suggested: "For instance: "endpoints" should be "enforcement point" >>>> >>>> I do not understand why GBP did not include this suggestionŠ >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> From: Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com<mailto:blak...@gmail.com>> >>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage >>>>questions)" >>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> >>>> Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 10:22 AM >>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >>>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] Group Based Policy and the way >>>> forward >>>> >>>> What I was referring to was also not Keystone's definition of an >>>>endpoint. >>>> It's almost as if the term has many uses and was not invented for >>>>Keystone. >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> http://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsug_html_chunked/ChStatEndpoints.html >>>> >>>> Did a similar discussion occur when Heat wanted to use the word >>>>'template' >>>> since this was clearly already in use by Horizon? >>>> >>>> On Aug 6, 2014 9:24 AM, "Jay Pipes" >>>> <jaypi...@gmail.com<mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 08/06/2014 02:12 AM, Kevin Benton wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Given that, pointing to the Nova parity work seems a bit like a red >>>>>> herring. This new API is being developed orthogonally to the >>>>>>existing >>>>>> API endpoints >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You see how you used the term endpoints there? :P >>>>> >>>>> -jay >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev