Names are not necessarily portable across implementations and this would be a
major change to make this late in the cycle. At this point in the cycle, we
need to focus on ensuring fixes minimize disruption.
mark
On Sep 11, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Arvind Somya (asomya) aso...@cisco.com wrote:
Ok,
Hello all
I have a patch in review where Akihiro made some comments about only
restricting protocols by names and allowing all protocol numbers when creating
security group rules. I personally disagree with this approach as names and
numbers are just a textual/integer representation of a
Let me raise another aspect of my potential concern about Arvind's
patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/43725/ .
What I concern about this patch is that this patch changes the
existing behavior which allows unknown protocols (known protocols in
this case is members of sg_suppprted_protocols).
As it seems the review is no longer the place for this discussion, I will
copy/paste my inline comments here:
I dislike the idea of passing magical numbers around to define protocols
(defined or otherwise). I believe there should be a common set of
protocols with their numbers mapped (such as
Hi all,
Arvind, thank you for initiate the discussion about the ip protocol in
security group rules.
I think the discussion point can be broken down into:
(a) how to specify ip protocol : by name, number, or both
(b) what ip protocols can be specified: known protocols only, all
protocols (or
I agree with you. Plugin was a mere example and it does make sense to
allow the provider to define custom protocols.
+1
On 9/11/13 12:46 PM, Akihiro Motoki amot...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Justin,
My point is what
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Justin Hammond
justin.hamm...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi Justin,
My point is what
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Justin Hammond
justin.hamm...@rackspace.com wrote:
As it seems the review is no longer the place for this discussion, I will
copy/paste my inline comments here:
I dislike the idea of passing magical numbers around to define
On Sep 11, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Akihiro Motoki amot...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Justin Hammond
justin.hamm...@rackspace.com wrote:
As it seems the review is no longer the place for this discussion, I will
copy/paste my inline comments here:
I dislike the idea of
