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

Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Fri, 16 November 2018 10:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
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 194DB130DC7; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:00:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 G9iRSEFVQ6TS; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:00:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5F92130DC6; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:00:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3592; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1542362454; x=1543572054; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J5dbbdcRh5H5s/cbJAz3144F5y0llq4PnBQ/9/F2GjM=; b=WoVoNt4atwaUPTm80hzp0r22s+rFuUjabYh6ar7kJJd+refRpE40AZ3U QXU1AlxJXMIpPrTmcg9Ppxidf4B0HyC5gO2qEtY/5elQlhlzNQSpA/t5z KGODBJLrR51F7Pu78v3U4HcvabxdBUPWoPW+as0fp1Ch7ZjfujTSv9jqZ M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAChlO5b/xbLJq1kGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgmlwEieDeIgYX4x9CCWXNhSBZg0jgVS?= =?us-ascii?q?CdQKDdTQJDQEDAQECAQECbRwMhTwBAQEDASMPAQVBEAsOCgICJgICVwYBDAg?= =?us-ascii?q?BAYMdAYF5CA+nSYEvhUCEXQWBC4sRgUA/gTgMgl+DGwOBJCaDGoJXAolKgTq?= =?us-ascii?q?UZgmGeoMrhnwGGIlchx6BT4tmhACGW4FGOEGBFDMaCBsVGoMNgicXiCOFeT8?= =?us-ascii?q?DMI1lAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,239,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="8092115"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Nov 2018 10:00:51 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.62] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-62.cisco.com [10.63.23.62]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wAGA0o0J005205; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:00:51 GMT
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
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>
References: <8C4CE813-D0D1-4F4F-B813-B451D9A8D8DF@gmail.com> <c6d24aae-267e-1b0e-0602-7e9d2e9d3961@cisco.com> <A6608120-8F38-4FB6-9B44-BA4D1755264A@chopps.org> <3FDB2C4D-659C-4653-A482-64E07D93F1EA@juniper.net>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9adac84c-c44f-0d05-3617-865118ab6617@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:00:49 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3FDB2C4D-659C-4653-A482-64E07D93F1EA@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.62, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-62.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-1.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/T7vGAZzn_anS80oFyYw3d_6crvU>
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 10:00:56 -0000

On 16/11/2018 00:54, Kent Watsen 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.

I wasn't trying to argue that tags shouldn't be on the server.  I was 
just trying to say that the reason for doing so wasn't immediately 
intuitive to me from reading the draft.  In particular, I hadn't 
considered the use case of multiple clients coordinating via the tag 
information in the server config/state that Chris suggested.  I can see 
that having one client store the tag information on the server may make 
it a lot easier to code a different client (that might be monitoring 
devices for consistency).  E.g. client B only fetch the data for modules 
marked with a tag set by client A.

For the catalog use case, I wasn't particularly suggesting that tooling 
needs to pull tags from a catalog, although I have no issues with that.  
It was more my observation that once we start classifying modules using 
tags then an obvious use case (at least to me ;-) for that meta-data 
information is for humans to be able to search library repositories 
using tags.  E.g. in a similar way to how RPM repositories might be 
searched (https://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/Groups.html).

I think that Chris is going to add some brief use case text to the 
draft.  With that addition, I have no further objections and I'm happy 
for document to progress.

Thanks,
Rob


>
> 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
>
>
>