Open Stack

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 <rmoats at us.ibm.com> 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 <edgar.magana at workday.com> wrote on 08/07/2014 04:02:43 PM:
>
>> From: Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com>
>
>
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> 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 <ronak.malav.shah at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
>> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 1:17 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
>> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>> 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
>> 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
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>