Re: [netmod] WG LC draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 - 10/2/18 - 10/16/18

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Tue, 16 October 2018 12:04 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 5415A130DDE for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 05:04:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 7vS8EExTy312 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 05:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDDB130DDB for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 05:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.5] (47-50-69-38.static.klmz.mi.charter.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA3BB6005B; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:04:21 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
In-Reply-To: <1538612528590.11321@Aviatnet.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:04:19 -0400
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1635702A-FFB5-469B-8389-7AFD772BFB04@chopps.org>
References: <b45d1c39-c2f0-bcaf-61a4-9822ac04725a@bogus.com> <1538612528590.11321@Aviatnet.com>
To: Alex Campbell <Alex.Campbell@Aviatnet.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Wou7rtEaUyRAVnw7qEt6dCL3Ly8>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG LC draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 - 10/2/18 - 10/16/18
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: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:04:24 -0000

> 
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 8:22 PM, Alex Campbell <Alex.Campbell@Aviatnet.com> wrote:
> 
> The introduction does not explain what they are useful for

The second sentence of the abstract: "The expectation is for such tags to be used to help classify and organize modules." The introduction repeats this in the first sentence. I'm not sure how much differently we could say "Tags are useful for organizing and classifying modules". Are you asking for justification on the usefulness of organizing and classifying things? I think this concept is rather widely accepted.


> , it just makes a comparison to #hashtags (which is something I would expect to see in an April 1st RFC).

Using tags to help organize collections of data is literally ubiquitous: Movies/music/media, IP routes, and yes even social media are just a few examples.  Regarding April 1st, are you are unfairly restricting your perspective to only the ironic use of hashtags? Hashtags organically developed as a useful and widely used way for people and groups to add meta-data to their messages which then allowed other services to collect and present them in useful ways. Indeed businesses and other groups use hashtags for this purpose to great success. It was hardly a joke, and for many folks it is immediately useful to understand what is being proposed.

Thanks,
Chris.