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

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

So I would now have a new tags server to store tags associated with the modules for each of my actual servers in my network?

This seems a bit convoluted to me, and I haven’t heard anyone say what the problem is with the servers storing the tags associated with their modules, there are obvious problems (that you highlight) with the servers *not* storing the tags.

I think this is a rather simple thing we’ve proposed, and the server is the seemingly natural/simple place to do it.

I think it would be good to get some justification for *not* having the server store tags for it’s own modules.

Thanks,
Chris.



> On Nov 15, 2018, at 19:54, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
>