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

+1 Christian 

Regards,
Jeff

> On Nov 16, 2018, at 10:23, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:57 PM Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> +1 to all.
> Hopefully, the standard and vendor tags automatically installed by the server are good enough,
> but if not, then the user can configure tags as well.
> 
> It would be good to get away from complex data silos in the client, or a mega-tags-server
> that does the same thing. The tag mappings could get complex and keeping them in the config
> on each server seems the easiest to manage,
> 
> 
>> Thanks,
>> Chris.
>> 
> 
> 
> Andy 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> > On Nov 15, 2018, at 19:54, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> 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
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod