Re: [netmod] WGLC on node-tags-11
Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 13 March 2024 14:59 UTC
Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A3B3C151543 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 07:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0fRAbyEPYnn for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 07:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2344DC151098 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 07:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyas.sandelman.ca (unknown [104.129.158.24]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D0B81F449; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:59:52 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: relay.sandelman.ca; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; secure) header.d=sandelman.ca header.i=@sandelman.ca header.b="HKKjh9WG"; dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DD2A5A00F9; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=dyas; t=1710341988; bh=AhIYQsNm6JfzjALA1SysUQ8kJkE1eaOxbaINpYpSmXE=; h=From:To:Subject:In-reply-to:References:Date:From; b=HKKjh9WGBkx0xq2kEXTEyHKseG0mj7xPv53ATZm/lOta489YHWnLwEVUrXbmlODRl 915538ZEuozpad38Z40SoyN/19oNEFSsKXEGtLFDPzOT7oDwnfkucc9KBdMlMIO/0z OyhYe2t6aM/FL7WS72krnJoBXXTt3kxDxd95MMnSqeYsAjNoM/vb1vj5co/+Czd32R Y8R1VP/kzhkxWSdtZJxamAL3zAes13tU+5WSxVTICQDyTToqnoUOe35hdcIiC38Pmo HEaaAxrtBsCbBMdmG0yYHEvDtMp9vK23FbwfZVmYiO7n34i/T2qf9q2CVYZ3TmDqMo z+mwvHPKmHFfA==
Received: from dyas (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dyas.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAF01A00F4; Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, netmod@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <ca779228988c4443895827d5e02bccd4@huawei.com>
References: <ca779228988c4443895827d5e02bccd4@huawei.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> message dated "Fri, 08 Mar 2024 06:02:05 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 10:59:48 -0400
Message-ID: <1237665.1710341988@dyas>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/1dCc4I5m_wZfP-3YQOzNWcqJy3U>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WGLC on node-tags-11
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:59:58 -0000
I read draft-ietf-netmod-node-tags-11 today.
I found the introduction lacked sufficient motivatio for this work.
I found the connection to #hashtags distracting and not very informative as
to motivation. Section 3 details more use cases, and maybe the introduction
should point to it. (Tell me that it's coming)
Section 3 does a better job of explaining things, but I think it needs to go
much further. Motivate for me why we can't do these things without a new
YANG primitive.
I think that user tags should be those without :, rather than user:
I don't know if tags are defined by manufacturers or users ("operators")
Can operators remove vendor tags? How does adding/removing tags interact
with nodes/leaves that are read-only?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
- [netmod] WGLC on node-tags-11 Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] WGLC on node-tags-11 Hongwei Li
- Re: [netmod] WGLC on node-tags-11 Michael Richardson