Thanks for sharing this Sumit. Again, my apologies for not attending the meeting, I just I couldn’t.
It seems you had a good discussion about the naming and I do respect the decision. Cheers, Edgar On 8/7/14, 2:32 PM, "Sumit Naiksatam" <sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com> wrote: >Ryan, point well taken. I am paraphrasing the discussion from today's >GBP sub team meeting on the options considered and the eventual >proposal for "policy-point" and "policy-group": > >18:36:50 <SumitNaiksatam_> so regarding the endpoint terminology >18:36:53 <SumitNaiksatam_> any suggestions? >18:36:56 <arosen> ivar-lazzaro: If you are expressing your intent of >doing enforcement at both points you do care then. >18:37:09 <rockyg> regXboi: Edgar Magana suggested using the IETF >phrasing -- enforcement point >18:37:31 <mscohen> i was thinking “edgar point” would be good. and we >won’t have to change our slides from EP. >18:37:44 <arosen> ivar-lazzaro: would be great to see an example >using the CLI how one sets something up that in GBP that does >enforcement at the instance and router. >18:37:44 <rockyg> mschoen ++ >18:37:55 <SumitNaiksatam_> rockyg: although enforcement point tends to >be used in a slightly different context >18:38:02 <rockyg> mscohen ++ >18:38:04 <regXboi> I was involved in the early IETF policy days, and >I'm not a big from of ep >18:38:04 <SumitNaiksatam_> mscohen: we dont want to overload the >terminology >18:38:13 <SumitNaiksatam_> regXboi: +1 >18:38:17 <rkukura> I’m not entirely sure “enforcement point” is the >same as our usage of endpoint >18:38:25 <SumitNaiksatam_> rkukura: exactly >18:38:28 <mscohen> SumitNaiksatam: i am joking of course >18:38:42 <SumitNaiksatam_> mscohen: :-) >18:38:54 <rockyg> Yeah. that's the problem with endpoint. It's right >for networking, but it already has another definition in >virtualization world. >18:38:54 <SumitNaiksatam_> how about network-endpoint (someone else >suggested that)? >18:38:55 <rkukura> I think enforcement point is more like the SG or >FWaaS that is used to render the intent >18:39:07 <SumitNaiksatam_> rkukura: agree >18:39:09 <regXboi> so... let's hit the thesaurus >18:39:16 <rockyg> Rkukara, agree >18:39:38 <rkukura> I had always throught endpoint was the right word >for both our usage and for keystone, with similar meanings, but >different meta-levels >18:40:01 <regXboi> rkukura: if we can find something different, let's >consider it >18:40:11 <regXboi> there is enough of a hill to climb >18:40:35 <regXboi> how about terminus? >18:40:52 * regXboi keeps reading synonyms >18:41:06 <rms_13> network-endpoint? >18:41:12 <regXboi> um... no >18:41:27 <regXboi> I think that won't help >18:41:58 <LouisF> policy-point/policy groups? >18:42:07 <rkukura> group member? >18:42:14 <mscohen> termination-point, gbp-id, policy point maybe >18:42:18 <SumitNaiksatam> sorry i dropped off again! >18:42:23 <regXboi> I think member >18:42:31 <regXboi> unless that's already used somewhere >18:42:33 <SumitNaiksatam> i was saying earlier, what about policy-point? >18:42:36 <s3wong> #chair SumitNaiksatam >18:42:37 <openstack> Current chairs: SumitNaiksatam SumitNaiksatam_ >banix rkukura s3wong >18:42:41 <rkukura> regXboi: Just “member” and “group”? >18:42:44 <SumitNaiksatam> s3wong: :-) >18:43:04 <s3wong> SumitNaiksatam: so now either way works for you :-) >18:43:09 <regXboi> rkurkura: too general I think... >18:43:15 <nbouthors> policy-provider, policy-consumer >18:43:16 <regXboi> er rkukura ... sorry >18:43:17 <yyywu> i still like endpoint better. >18:43:23 <rockyg> bourn or bourne 1 (bɔːn) >18:43:23 <rockyg> >18:43:23 <rockyg> — n >18:43:23 <rockyg> 1. a destination; goal >18:43:23 <rockyg> 2. a boundary >18:43:25 <regXboi> I think policy-point and policy-group >18:43:27 <SumitNaiksatam> yyywu: :-) >18:43:34 <rockyg> Bourne-point? >18:43:40 <SumitNaiksatam> rockyg: :-) >18:44:04 <SumitNaiksatam> more in favor of policy-point and policy-group? >18:44:36 <SumitNaiksatam> i thnk LouisF suggested as well >18:44:49 <mscohen> +1 to policy-point >18:44:50 <rms_13> +1 to policy-point and policy-group >18:44:55 <yyywu> +1 >18:44:56 <nbouthors> SumitNaiksatam: +1 too >18:45:07 <rockyg> +1 >18:45:08 <rms_13> FINALLY... YEAH >18:45:18 <SumitNaiksatam> okay so how about we float this in the ML? >18:45:21 <s3wong> +1 >18:45:31 <prasadv> +1 >18:45:35 <rms_13> Yes... lets do that >18:45:37 <rkukura> +1 >18:45:44 <SumitNaiksatam> so that we dont end up picking up an >overlapping terminology again >18:45:55 <SumitNaiksatam> who wants to do it? as in send to the ML? >18:46:07 * SumitNaiksatam waiting to hand out an AI :-P >18:46:16 <SumitNaiksatam> regXboi: ? >18:46:17 <rms_13> I can do it >18:46:26 <regXboi> hmm? >18:46:31 <SumitNaiksatam> rms_13: ah you put your hand up first >18:46:36 * regXboi apologies - bouncing between multiple IRC meetings >18:46:47 <hemanthravi> policy-endpoint ? >18:46:57 <SumitNaiksatam> #action rms_13 to send “policy-point” >“policy-group” suggestion to mailing list > >On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> 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 <edgar.mag...@workday.com> wrote on 08/07/2014 04:02:43 PM: >> >>> From: Edgar Magana <edgar.mag...@workday.com> >> >> >>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >>> <email@example.com> >>> 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 <ronak.malav.s...@gmail.com> >>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage >>>questions)" < >>> firstname.lastname@example.org> >>> Date: Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM >>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < >>> email@example.com> >>> 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 >>> OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStackemail@example.com >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev