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 <[email protected]> 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 <[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 > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
