Open Stack

I've been looking through the reviews on and where it's gotten to -
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/243429/4/guidelines/microversion_specification.rst


A couple of questions / concerns.

There was major push back from API-WG on 'API' itself being in the
headers. What is the data on what services are already doing? My
understanding is this is convention for all every service so far, mostly
because that's how we did it in Nova. Forcing a header change for that
seems massively bike shed. There is zero value gained in such a change
by anyone, and just confusion.

On moving from code names to service types, I'm completely onboard with
that providing value. However there is a bigger issue about the fact
that service types don't really have a central registry. That's why Nova
didn't do this up front because that's a whole other thing to figure out
which has some really big implications on our community.

Code names are self namespaced because they are based on git repo -
openstack/nova, openstack/ironic. We get a registry for free that won't
have conflicts.

I actually agree these should be service types, however, that requires
understanding how service types are going to be handed out. Having a
project just start using 'monitoring' or 'policy' as a service type is
going to go poorly in the long term when they get told they have to
change that, and now all their clients are broken.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net