Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Fri, 16 November 2018 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 BF81D130E08; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:54:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.172
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, KHOP_DYNAMIC=1.999, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 bvGt117wlIx1; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:54:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1364D128B14; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:54:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108159.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id wAG0i5dB032344; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:54:24 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=E/kH0qRnnAZdy5WHBo7X9eMKWqEmcxQZKOxEReukKmU=; b=EOkAHFPm1/3H7AA2UICmHzlBiBiMZRJiFW8k8Hl/LpbVgIY5LENKC/uuf60JDDDmIVaF KlhRk4zZqbxh8iph4BsGq66rwfcTMg782qizQDdAORmRAvjQziHwellH+NQqnqqkUi8r DnuN/vnhknlbsR+Y70PhKkP3SD3eAeeHH4zuuTuw0743V1UPkGH/OhpI+IqpVk8d072V OmgVqWLYelnDdHee05QWQ+tDdBiDXgdaGssGtixKkpaEvRsKRVnhZjGEFwBpgtnNqiG5 e6uJkZPCxibrHU5A2Km4OEO99SnJfL31V0IavsXI/0cnrP7oalfKLAwfG9m7XDJMc+QZ FA==
Received: from nam01-sn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01lp0119.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.119]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2nse6krht6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:54:24 -0800
Received: from DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.109.202) by DM6PR05MB4460.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (20.176.79.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1339.15; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:54:22 +0000
Received: from DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7540:75f2:3803:298a]) by DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7540:75f2:3803:298a%5]) with mapi id 15.20.1339.021; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:54:22 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
CC: joel jaeggli <joelja@gmail.com>, "draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags.authors@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags.authors@ietf.org>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call
Thread-Index: AQHUeqdUNvHcXv700EGZT1tuC2mJ5qVNikqAgACpiICAAxDrgA==
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:54:22 +0000
Message-ID: <3FDB2C4D-659C-4653-A482-64E07D93F1EA@juniper.net>
References: <8C4CE813-D0D1-4F4F-B813-B451D9A8D8DF@gmail.com> <c6d24aae-267e-1b0e-0602-7e9d2e9d3961@cisco.com> <A6608120-8F38-4FB6-9B44-BA4D1755264A@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <A6608120-8F38-4FB6-9B44-BA4D1755264A@chopps.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.4.181110
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM6PR05MB4460; 6:iX1Oku0/UhTvJzioeMrkUxY+c3B901Ok6yRJS6awr/r3SvKW3mnPvdYvKvhp167MjKVigFVTmSIIMppPuPe8mFw8tH0L753gFNcJadFNO4vqK0CNIwIQBSWS0+gMvy8K6M78Xg5x1LPNEEokv+Y4Ap+VGOgGZhHFkG7gOE196jzEMqiibYLwiuSThkW1N2I7px3pSgEs8O/ni4GKu9He4+yULC/IOTZebKM0fUG1JCAUCJ7jA7FYBnuaPrgpLc5yPkGt7+jvFGCabLatLYJF5rhcbWYwJrkCiiatRxbe+IrRpbedFD2ritC5taAnCEV+qSzl16+Casp0nEdERLZI/2Q3nJlfXgL5I8sPeyRO+Ghf8OsB0+Zx1CW+FBHikaH/N4nmEJPoU6YuijY3r2Xs8P8gubGvJCws69PvqwpH4gqi9xRDOC9xVYz0Y7B0aPAXLzIsh2igrC8lGoYZ1Av+4A==; 5:j1TPQ7VzqVnDrNvLVx90fR+mA93ZSScAHrH5OppJI1pI5jFvzygS1gknfHGXaibKSbKVYKuk8mGNsK2j8lyN+ELmiXi0RDfLRSuMqrYzA6reHBtIKymVgZ+uQPbofxzoH7/iC4ff32ELpG+ID7Lm1wit4p/DCZ0EkCmoHxBz93E=; 7:os3nXTBIiugluVoeotl7aCFJl5vis057CcJsQS+6hSKqs/SiPKFtO9V6vLHiTCvzIOqNviVQsZ2BPkLQhMEY1a0TPkvHkSR2XYmPXbeXpIupz7+fPl+tU8+p4VAFi+1NR8wIiBR9VN2PCCSzpNmtFA==
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 923b4b65-a9a8-4d1e-5013-08d64b5e0c39
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390098)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR05MB4460;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR05MB4460:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR05MB44600A3122CD3194C3FCCBBFA5DD0@DM6PR05MB4460.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(3231415)(944501410)(52105112)(6055026)(148016)(149066)(150057)(6041310)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(201708071742011)(7699051)(76991095); SRVR:DM6PR05MB4460; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM6PR05MB4460;
x-forefront-prvs: 0858FF8026
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(136003)(396003)(366004)(199004)(189003)(106356001)(76176011)(6512007)(99286004)(82746002)(14444005)(97736004)(71190400001)(71200400001)(83716004)(58126008)(256004)(2616005)(316002)(25786009)(476003)(102836004)(110136005)(54906003)(2900100001)(68736007)(26005)(86362001)(6506007)(186003)(53936002)(305945005)(33656002)(6246003)(478600001)(6486002)(36756003)(229853002)(7736002)(39060400002)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(8676002)(2906002)(105586002)(486006)(446003)(5660300001)(6116002)(3846002)(66066001)(11346002)(6436002)(14454004)(4326008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR05MB4460; H:DM6PR05MB4665.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: vMrtvaHZQX884IwIIb2LXkeguSzjikN8T+qjQH0oo9vygtwLJi25M91KjNMCTXIlDKIt2vOqQgsaOqc3Ew/29X4M362qZV2r+BzYVV4/qE2u1zI4C30584GuOmXya4dCifT0YBLcELmdpsiaf+vKC8HIu6h1/c/0fsFDxse1uXF+9IOYKyWUijHnU0y8DmxmPz7uAiEA0+A9xgBA9+b6zpoPO8LYF4PgkKER/kUNsLIhJSyJISD/A7SP9og9Ie90PGI7Rg6cBe4PydFMVT6qyEGWc3pD2Zyq6pcGZed9rcjjjkqRDFQdL3I1OYglUVXdO6Mo/qSGnknyozjUgvJUjWsWvdnQGhCFU8QZ+cZw0/E=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <EADC68C2E93E064F92B2E29ADFA5D466@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 923b4b65-a9a8-4d1e-5013-08d64b5e0c39
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 16 Nov 2018 00:54:22.1914 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR05MB4460
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-11-15_17:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1811160004
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/48AoWu2pYDERiffdOeavVQjvagQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Confirming draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-03 consensus call
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:54:30 -0000

> The servers implement the modules which can have predefined tags from
> the module designer as well as the implementer (vendor) which literally
> cannot come from anywhere *but* the server that implements the module.

Predefined tags from the implementer only needs to come from the 
implementor.  Whether it is provided by the server itself or via
some out-of-band mechanism (e.g., module catalog) seems to be the
question.

Of course, one might say that user-tags must be provided by the 
server itself, in order to provide an inter-client communication 
mechanism of some sort, as otherwise a single client, even if 
distributed, could keep the user-tags in its local database.

Though this begs the question, would it be better for the clients
to use a centralized service of some sort (perhaps within the
deployment's infrastructure, assuming the user-tags are private)
to have user-tags once per module, rather than (redundantly?) on
each server, thus ensuring consistency as well as avoiding 
potential race conditions?  Or are these user-tags truly 
server-specific (not just module-specific)?

Is it accurate to assume that two servers running identical 
software would have identical user-tags?  Of course, the servers
might be running different software (either different releases
for the same hardware, or different hardware, potentially from
different vendors).  Accommodating such would complicate the
construction of a centralized module-tagging service, though
it could still be done.

I suppose that the value of this document is not in any one of
the use-cases, as they each seem minor and having alternate 
(potentially better) workarounds, but in the multitude of them
all, and how a single mechanism can help.


> This is not what I thought would hold this work up.

My experience is that Last Calls tend to drive people to question
basics again.  By example, it's rather common for a draft's title
to change during a Last Call.  That said, this suitability question
has been lingering since the day Joel kicked off the Adoption Call,
that it is still with us seems to be the problem.


Kent // contributor