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



On 8/7/14, 2:32 PM, "Sumit Naiksatam" <> 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
>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 <> 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 <> wrote on 08/07/2014 04:02:43 PM:
>>> From: Edgar Magana <>
>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>> <>
>>> 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?
>>> I would like to understand the argument why we are creating new
>>> names instead of using the standard ones.
>>> Edgar
>>> From: Ronak Shah <>
>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>>questions)" <
>>> Date: Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM
>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy -
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev mailing list

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to