Open Stack

Ivar,

You are totally right. I just want to clarify that I haven’t express any disagreement on the plugin, I actually (as Sumit mentioned) +2 this patch before. I just pointed our that I have expressed previously that GBP should use the standard Policy Terminology. I did not push hard enough at the right time because I consider it a minor thing but Jay has a valid point and I think it has to be reconsidered IMHO.

Let’s be careful with our public statements!

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 2:52 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


Edgar,

Actually, As Pedro said, I think that the time for discussing these kind of concerns was the BP approval. The fact that it has been approved after many proposals and reviews means that a community effort wanted the GBP to be implemented in this release cycle the way it was presented at that time.

With this, I absolutely don't want to say that you should not express your disagreement! I'm just saying that it should be expressed differently (a BP to propose your model in K?). Otherwise, the whole BP process becomes just pointless.

Meanwhile, imho, blocking the patch feels really unfair.

Ivar.

On Aug 6, 2014 11:00 PM, "Edgar Magana" <edgar.magana at workday.com<mailto:edgar.magana at workday.com>> wrote:
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


_______________________________________________
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/e163e304/attachment-0001.html>