Hi, I am taking the rest of this discussion off the list. Drinks with everyone on nox-dev is not very scalable, and I would like to keep this option open. :P
Regards KK On 9 March 2010 09:43, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:38:47AM -0800, kk yap wrote: >> > I'm not aware of wording that says a switch may simply ignore a >> > command. The transport is TCP (or SSL on TCP), so nothing is going to >> > get accidentally lost. >> >> We are saying the same thing. I said "there is nothing in OpenFlow >> that dictates reliable execution of commands received" and you are >> saying "there is nothing in OpenFlow that dictates unreliable >> execution". In that case, guess what is the minimum acceptable >> behavior? :) > > I guess you read between the lines in a funny way. If I write a > specification that says "command A does B and returns C" and I don't > also write in that specification "command A always does B and returns > C", then I guess you would assume that it is OK for command A to do D > and return E or to not do anything at all? > _______________________________________________ nox-dev mailing list [email protected] http://noxrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/nox-dev_noxrepo.org
