Open Stack

Ivar,

Of course and this is why we are having this conversation, in order to merge our different opinions.

Edgar

From: Ivar Lazzaro <ivarlazzaro at gmail.com<mailto:ivarlazzaro at gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 1:41 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at 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.magana at workday.com<mailto:edgar.magana at 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" <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com<mailto:sumitnaiksatam at 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.magana at workday.com<mailto:edgar.magana at 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" <sumitnaiksatam at gmail.com<mailto:sumitnaiksatam at 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.magana at workday.com<mailto:edgar.magana at 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 <blak111 at gmail.com<mailto:blak111 at gmail.com>>
>>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>>>questions)"
>>>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 10:22 AM
>>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at 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" <jaypipes at gmail.com<mailto:jaypipes at 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 at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140806/e153d662/attachment.html>