Hi, The RFC7047 states below about the Monitor request.
The request object has the following members: o "method": "monitor" o "params": [<db-name>, <json-value>, <monitor-requests>] o "id": <nonnull-json-value> The <json-value> parameter is used to match subsequent update notifications (see below) to this request. The <monitor-requests> object maps the name of the table to be monitored to an array of <monitor-request> objects. Each <monitor-request> is an object with the following members: "columns": [<column>*] optional "select": <monitor-select> optional The columns, if present, define the columns within the table to be monitored. <monitor-select> is an object with the following members: "initial": <boolean> optional "insert": <boolean> optional "delete": <boolean> optional "modify": <boolean> optional The contents of this object specify how the columns or table are to be monitored, as explained in more detail below. However, when I look at some of the legitimate samples of the Monitor requests, they are encoded as below. { "id": "c5c09c07-11c1-449b-8f04-016fefe15844", "method": "monitor", "params": [ "hardware_vtep", "91c9eed4-00bb-48e3-b2d9-51e0364bbdc2", { "Physical_Locator": { "columns": [ "dst_ip", "encapsulation_type", "_uuid" ], "select": { "initial": true, "insert": true, "delete": true, "modify": true } }, "Physical_Locator_Set": { "columns": [ "_uuid", "locators" ], "select": { "initial": true, "insert": true, "delete": true, "modify": true } } } ] } If we go by the RFC encoding rules, "params" contains the <monitor-requests>, which maps the "Table name" to an array of <Monitor-request> object. So IMHO, the table names comes only once in the message. Correct? Also, it is explicitly mentioned that (as below) and it does NOT contain the "Table name" in it. Each <monitor-request> is an object with the following members: "columns": [<column>*] optional "select": <monitor-select> optional However, in the message payload that I have, shows the tuple, which contains "Table : Columns : Select". This list of <monitor-request> constitute the <monitor-requests> as per the RFC definition. I see this as the discrepancy between the RFC definition and how the message is actually sent by the controller. Can you please review and confirm this discrepancy? Thanks, /anil.
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss