Edgar-
I can't speak for anyone else, but in my mind at least (and having been
involved in the work that led up to 3198),
the members of the groups being discussed here are not PEPs. As 3198
states, being a PEP implies running COPS
and I don't see that as necessary for membership in GBP groups.
Ryan Moats
Edgar Magana <[email protected]> wrote on 08/07/2014 04:02:43 PM:
> From: Edgar Magana <[email protected]>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <[email protected]>
> Date: 08/07/2014 04:03 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy -
Renaming
>
> I am sorry that I could not attend the GBP meeting.
> Is there any reason why the IEFT standard is not considered?
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3198
>
> I would like to understand the argument why we are creating new
> names instead of using the standard ones.
>
> Edgar
>
> From: Ronak Shah <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<
> [email protected]>
> Date: Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> [email protected]>
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy - Renaming
>
> Hi,
> Following a very interesting and vocal thread on GBP for last couple
> of days and the GBP meeting today, GBP sub-team proposes following
> name changes to the resource.
>
> policy-point for endpoint
> policy-group for endpointgroup (epg)
>
> Please reply if you feel that it is not ok with reason and suggestion.
>
> I hope that it wont be another 150 messages thread :)
>
> Ronak_______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
