Hi,
Am Mo., 31. Aug. 2020 um 15:40 Uhr schrieb Edward Haas <edwardh(a)redhat.com>:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 2:40 PM Till Maas <till(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am Mo., 31. Aug. 2020 um 12:55 Uhr schrieb Edward Haas
<edwardh(a)redhat.com>:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This issue has been referenced by the Kernel community here.
>> > That ref also includes other references from several organizations.
>> >
>> > My main concern here is that we will diverge from the telco terms which is
the source
>> > of the current naming using the API.
>> > I have not managed to see work on this from IEEE or IETF (e.g. RFC/s
proposals).
>> > It took centuries for the current technical terms to get stabilized and
become a common language for
>> > engineers to communicate.
>>
>> There is this draft:
>>
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
>> Not sure how much people are still working on it, seems that the
>> oldest version is from 2018.
>
>
> Thanks. Unfortunately I see not decision made and no specific changes that will sync
all to the same naming.
>
>>
>> > What I do not prefer to have is a unique Nmstate naming convention which
will differ from other telco solutions.
>> > If we are talking about internal non-API usage, then anything may work and
is easily changeable. But when we look
>> > at the API level this may be a serious issue which merits a larger design
effort and not just a simple voting.
>>
>> Since we are talking about only two words, I believe it is reasonable
>> for anyone to learn that different words are used in other contexts.
>> Since we are talking about preparations for nmstate 1.0.0, the
>> inclusive terms need to be chosen sooner than later to ensure that it
>> can be properly communicated and we can avoid this change after 1.0.0.
>
>
> My claim here is that if we do this prematurely we lose consistency and
standardization.
> If there is no standardization yet, at least some that the big players have agreed
on, we should not
> enforce namings which may surprise our users.
In my opinion, Nmstate is free to choose inclusion over
standardization. This does not mean that Nmstate is enforcing this for
anyone.
The way I see Nmstate, it is all about the API. Everything else is
implementation details.
As an API layer, its first priority is to be inclusive to other
solutions that need networking. That means it
better be more sensitive to standardization over humanity's mood and trends.
I am fine with inner changes, I am less comfortable with API changes
that will be diverse from other
communities' naming (I am not talking about kernel or NM, but upper
level management and telco API/s).
It is already obvious that every project now will go and choose their
own naming internally, but it should be
very hard to do it on a public API. If each project will behave like
this on public API, we will end up with a mess in general.
If the community is seeking real inclusion naming, it better start
with the IETF, IEEE and the like, not with little projects that
their first priority is to integrate well with all other projects.
> In general, we could introduce another inclusive naming without
breaking the existing and control it through
> configuration. The same can be done in the future when something is agreed in the
telco community.
> The configuration just needs to control the reporting, the setting can accept all
options.
Since we have constants for everything, users who prefer offensive
over inclusive language can probably adjust this easily on their side
IMHO. This seems trivial enough that it does not need a config in
Nmstate.
Some see this change as offensive, breaking engineering standards that
took decades to stabilize.
I am good with not offending anyone, keeping backward compatibility
and allowing users to choose their
preference and Nmstate ready for future naming changes per the
standardization that comes out of this period.
Thanks
Till
> Will that provide a reasonable solution for this goal?
>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Till
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Edy.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:33 PM Fernando Fernandez Mancera
<ferferna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello everyone,
>> >>
>> >> I am asking for ideas and tomorrow I will open a public voting on the
>> >> mailing list. So, please add your suggestions now. The current ones
>> >> are:
>> >>
>> >> - main/sub
>> >> - main/member
>> >> - parent/child
>> >> - base/child
>> >> - main/worker
>> >> - trunk/leg
>> >> - base/leg
>> >>
>> >> Please, feel free to add other terms.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Fernando.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:31 PM William Caban Babilonia
>> >> <william.caban(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Another idea for the naming.
>> >> >
>> >> > If we consider something like:
>> >> >
>> >> > bond0:
>> >> > - eth0
>> >> > - eth1
>> >> > - eth2
>> >> > - eth3
>> >> >
>> >> > bond0.vlan1
>> >> > bond0.vlan2
>> >> >
>> >> > etc,
>> >> >
>> >> > - What about calling the physical interfaces "eth0-3"
"members" of bond0?
>> >> > - What about calling "vlan1" "vlan2" are a
child of bond0?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _W
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:33 AM Till Maas <till(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Am Do., 27. Aug. 2020 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Fernando Fernandez
Mancera
>> >> >> <ferferna(a)redhat.com>:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Looking on the thread it seems we agree on two points:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * We should use a generic word for codebase and for API
VLAN/VXLAN
>> >> >> > will user base/parent, as we are already doing.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Short words are good so controller/subordinate is too
long and
>> >> >> > interface/subinterface are too generic.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> my proposal should have been top and sub as the identifiers
but I it
>> >> >> would be spoken as top interface / sub interface.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > IMO, we should follow the kernel terms and we
shouldn't create new
>> >> >> > terms because it would be hard to understand for
maintainers.
>> >> >> >
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-team-approves-new-terminology-bans-te...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I propose to use:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "base/worker" or "main/worker".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This would also lead to base interface and worker interface.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> base and worker are not mentioned in the zdnet article. So how
about
>> >> >> "main" and "sub" (short for subordinate).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can we maybe check at least with someone else involved in the
upstream
>> >> >> kernel to get their opinion if Jarod is not available?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >> Till
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If there is no complaint on this I will work on this by
next week, so
>> >> >> > please, share your thoughts. :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Thanks!
>> >> >> > Fernando.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM Fernando Fernandez
Mancera
>> >> >> > <ferferna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Sorry, I meant "base/leg".
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:59 AM Fernando Fernandez
Mancera
>> >> >> > > <ferferna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:35 AM Till Maas
<till(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Hi,
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Am Mo., 24. Aug. 2020 um 10:14 Uhr schrieb
Fernando Fernandez Mancera
>> >> >> > > > > <ferferna(a)redhat.com>:
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:58 AM Till
Maas <till(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > Hi,
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > Am Do., 13. Aug. 2020 um 17:06
Uhr schrieb Gris Ge <fge(a)redhat.com>:
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > Hi,
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > I would like to suggest we
deprecate our use of `master/slave` in
>> >> >> > > > > > > > nmstate project.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > And switching to these
terminologies for interface relationship in
>> >> >> > > > > > > > the coming new release of
nmstate-0.4.0:
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * For bond/team/bridge:
>> >> >> > > > > > > > *
controller/subordinate
>> >> >> > > > > > > > # For bridge, we can
also use controller/port.
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > having shorter words would be
nice, maybe
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > trunk/leg
>> >> >> > > > > > > base/leg
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > base/dell
>> >> >> > > > > > > mesa/dell
>> >> >> > > > > > > base/vale
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > bulk/part
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * For VLAN/VxLAN:
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * parent/child
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * base/child
>> >> >> > > > > > > > # Current API using
`base-iface`, no need to change
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > Some other suggestions:
>> >> >> > > > > > > base/apex
>> >> >> > > > > > > mesa/apex
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > base/head
>> >> >> > > > > > > trunk/head
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > Those are a little bit confusing for
me. I expect both "base" and
>> >> >> > > > > > "head" would replace
"master".
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Interesting. This might be because I did
not think about the old
>> >> >> > > > > analogy where one interface has power over
the other but more like how
>> >> >> > > > > they are arranged.
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Bond interfaces are built on top of other
interfaces, making the other
>> >> >> > > > > interfaces something at the bottom (like
legs) and the bond interface
>> >> >> > > > > the trunk or base. Since VLAN interfaces
are also built on top of
>> >> >> > > > > other interfaces, even on bond interfaces,
this makes them another top
>> >> >> > > > > layer which is the head. But since there
could be multiple VLAns, arms
>> >> >> > > > > might make more sense and then both arms
and legs are limbs.
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > I've been thinking on this and it
would be good to use only one option
>> >> >> > > > > > for codebase, i.e using the same
terms for all kind of interfaces. For
>> >> >> > > > > > the exposed API, I would not change
VLAN/VXLAN as we are already using
>> >> >> > > > > > base/child terms. For other
interfaces I noticed that we are mixing up
>> >> >> > > > > > "slaves" and
"ports", I suggest to unify it into a generic one. IMO,
>> >> >> > > > > > the most generic are
"controller/subordinate".
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > If we agree on the generic word, I
would use them for the whole codebase.
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > What do you think? Thanks!
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > I am not sure if the power structure is
the best analogy, here. Does a
>> >> >> > > > > bond/bridge interface really control its
subordinate interfaces? Maybe
>> >> >> > > > > it also does not matter that much, given
that at some point the words
>> >> >> > > > > will be defined by usage. However, using
long words might not stick
>> >> >> > > > > since people are lazy. A shorter
alternative might be top
>> >> >> > > > > interface/sub interface.
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Yes, that is true. It would be nice to use a
shorter word.. maybe
>> >> >> > > > "parent/child"? As parents have power
over their childs.. Not sure.
>> >> >> > > > About interface/subinterface, I find them very
lazy, "interface" term
>> >> >> > > > is all over the codebase so it could be very
confusing for us, IMO.
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > I also like "base/lag"-
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > Thanks!
>> >> >> > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Thanks
>> >> >> > > > > Till
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > The trunk interface of eth1 is
bond0
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of the bridge br0
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of an base
interface
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a dell interface of br0
(probably not so nice because of the
>> >> >> > > > > > > confusion with the
manufacturer)
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a vale interface of br0
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a limb of br0
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of br0
>> >> >> > > > > > > br0 is the trunk for eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a part interface of the
br0 bulk interface
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > the base of VLAN eth1.100 is
eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1.100 is an apex interface of
eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1.100 is a head of eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is the trunk interface for
eth1.100.
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is the base interface for
eth1.100.
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1 is the trunk for eth1.100
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1.100 is a limb of eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > eth1.100 is an arm of eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > These seem to be my current
favorites:
>> >> >> > > > > > > leg/trunk/head
>> >> >> > > > > > > limb/trunk/limb
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > Limb could be used both for the
interfaces included in a bridge or a
>> >> >> > > > > > > bond. Not sure, if they need to
have different identifiers.
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > For example:
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * The `controller` of eth1
is bond0 and `controller_type` is bond
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * The br0 is `controller`
of eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * The eth1 is `port` of
bridge br0 or `subordinate` of bridge br0
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * The eth1 is
`subordinate` of bond0
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * The VLAN eth1.100 is
child of eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * The base interface of
eth1.100 is eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * The parent of VLAN
eth1.100 is eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > > * The VLAN eth1.100 is
child of eth1
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > I am not English native
speaker, please kindly help on this if you have
>> >> >> > > > > > > > better ideas.
>> >> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > > Thank you very much!
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > Thank you for moving this
forward!
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > Till
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > --
>> >> >> > > > > > > Till Maas
>> >> >> > > > > > > He/His/Him
>> >> >> > > > > > > Associate Manager, Software
Engineering
>> >> >> > > > > > > NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible
RHEL Networking System Role
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > > > Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
>> >> >> > > > > > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht
Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>> >> >> > > > > > > Managing Directors: Charles
Cachera, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill,
>> >> >> > > > > > > Thomas Savage
>> >> >> > > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > --
>> >> >> > > > > Till Maas
>> >> >> > > > > He/His/Him
>> >> >> > > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
>> >> >> > > > > NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL
Networking System Role
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> > > > > Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/,
Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
>> >> >> > > > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen,
HRB 153243,
>> >> >> > > > > Managing Directors: Charles Cachera,
Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill,
>> >> >> > > > > Thomas Savage
>> >> >> > > > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Till Maas
>> >> >> He/His/Him
>> >> >> Associate Manager, Software Engineering
>> >> >> NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking System Role
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat:
Grasbrunn,
>> >> >> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>> >> >> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Laurie Krebs, Michael
O'Neill,
>> >> >> Thomas Savage
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> nmstate-devel mailing list --
nmstate-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to
nmstate-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> >> >> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>> >> >> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> >> >> List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/nmstate-devel@lists.fedoraho...
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> nmstate-devel mailing list -- nmstate-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to
nmstate-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> >> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>> >> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> >> List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/nmstate-devel@lists.fedoraho...
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Till Maas
>> He/His/Him
>> Associate Manager, Software Engineering
>> NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking System Role
>>
>> Red Hat GmbH,
https://de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
>> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael
O'Neill
>>
--
Till Maas
He/His/Him
Associate Manager, Software Engineering
NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking System Role
Red Hat GmbH,
https://de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill