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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 17 October 2018 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 71FA212F1A5 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:52:28 -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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 1GEHtrkHzV24 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC35D1277D2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AACCE1AE0399; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:52:24 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 08:52:24 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20181017.085224.1915793347645373759.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: Alex.Campbell@Aviatnet.com
Cc: chopps@chopps.org, netmod@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <1539732745739.66497@Aviatnet.com>
References: <1538612528590.11321@Aviatnet.com> <1635702A-FFB5-469B-8389-7AFD772BFB04@chopps.org> <1539732745739.66497@Aviatnet.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/opZhCruozAj2Ei6ojiksdiAmY9g>
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: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:52:29 -0000

Alex Campbell <Alex.Campbell@Aviatnet.com> wrote:
> 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?

It would use it to populate the "/module-tags" list in the operational
state, where operators can read the tags.


/martin

> (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 <chopps@chopps.org>
> 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 <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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>