Re: [netmod] Module tags

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Thu, 16 February 2017 07:03 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 4D6711296B6 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:03:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3GdVBeCVD7Ua for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:03:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF545129431 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:03:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (97-83-46-222.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [97.83.46.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D7F461996; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:03:43 +0000 (UTC)
References: <87r338gtzw.fsf@chopps.org> <20170209.085506.1418859449501855827.mbj@tail-f.com> <878tpfac43.fsf@chopps.org> <20170209.120823.198284779081114388.mbj@tail-f.com> <874m03a74p.fsf@chopps.org> <15a22d86378.27fd.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net> <72728899-a310-b43e-65dd-7623135c5fba@cisco.com> <87mvdo986q.fsf@chopps.org> <d13c0b5c-edb5-a6c1-a042-e1203ced5423@cisco.com> <87tw7wn39n.fsf@chopps.org> <36ddb2a1-61b2-362e-ffc5-5a8e54f8c4f3@cisco.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 25.1.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
In-reply-to: <36ddb2a1-61b2-362e-ffc5-5a8e54f8c4f3@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 02:03:41 -0500
Message-ID: <87d1eimxbm.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/3eXwoVHR9OJtDCgBe2MqsMGYIW0>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] Module tags
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 07:03:46 -0000

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> writes:

> On 14/02/2017 16:30, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> writes:
>>> A roughly equivalent example might be perhaps like CDDB, where a program
>>> can take a CD track, and go and fetch the associated metadata from some
>>> known location without the metadata being embedded in the CD track itself.
>> Sure, but that is setup that way b/c the CD data is seen as read only
>> right? I don't think this is even the normal way to tag things. There
>> are tons of examples of the opposite where the item itself is tagged
>> (XML attributes, social media's #hashtags, cow ears, ...).
> It will be easier to change the tag on a cow ear than on a standardized
> YANG module, but I like your example ;-)
>
> It is outside my area of expertise, but I expect that most of the
> meta-data associated with a cow is not attached to the cow itself, but
> stored in some database somewhere.  The cow ear tag is more so that you
> can identify the right cow in the database.

On some other threads I've given the example of a tag that indicates an
"interface" (like java has interfaces), is present. In that case the
actual metadata (the interface definition) is present elsewhere and the
tag is just like a cow ear tag, i.e., a reference. This is the case with
most tag uses I think, the only difference may be the amount of
information that is represented by the tag.

Thanks,
Chris.