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

[Alex Campbell <[e-mail]>]

I have no issue with systems using tags to classify or organize modules, however this seems to me like something that would be specific to the system doing the classifying.
It would not be something that needs to be specified in the module itself (except perhaps as freeform description text), and it certainly would not need to involve the NETCONF server.
What would a server do with module classification data? (unless it is also implementing some kind of module browsing interface, in which case it might be used to supply the browser with data)

Hashtags - all types, that I'm aware of - are inherently freeform and fluid, changing quickly according to the desires of users. I don't think it makes sense to "hard-code" them in published RFCs or even published vendor modules or firmware.

Tomorrow, I might want to list all modules for management plane protocols. As a network operator, should I go and update the ietf-module-tags on all of my network elements? That seems silly. This should be client-side data. (And if I did, what happens when I add a new router and forget to update its tag data? Will that confuse the client?)

Regards, Alex

________________________________________
From: Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, 17 October 2018 1:04 a.m.
To: Alex Campbell
Cc: Christian Hopps; joel jaeggli; NETMOD Working Group
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG LC draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 - 10/2/18 - 10/16/18

>
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 8:22 PM, Alex Campbell <[e-mail]> 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.