That I understand it! Thanks for the clarification. Edgar From: Ryan Moats <rmoats at us.ibm.com<mailto:rmoats at us.ibm.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: Thursday, August 7, 2014 at 2:45 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][policy] Group Based Policy - Renaming Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com<mailto:edgar.magana at workday.com>> wrote on 08/07/2014 04:37:39 PM: > From: Edgar Magana <edgar.magana at workday.com<mailto:edgar.magana at workday.com>> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" > <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>> > Date: 08/07/2014 04:40 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy - Renaming > > Ryan, > > COPS implies a common protocol to communicate with PEPs, which > implies the same communication mechanism basically. > So, you are implying that "endpoints" in GBP will use "different" > protocol to communicate with "decisions" entities? Nope, I'm saying that the members of groups are not *required* to do enforcement. They *could* (based on the implementation), but calling them PEPs means they would *have* to. Ryan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140807/a7c1de2b/attachment.html>