I think SFP can keep it, others can remove it, it doesn't make sense for a SF to have a symmetric flag.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brady Allen Johnson Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 6:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [sfc-dev] Deprecating SFC, SFP, and RSP symmetric fields Currently there is a symmetric field in the SFC, SFP, and RSP data models. I will deprecate these fields now in Carbon. Instead of defining this in one of [SFC, SFP, RSP] a chain will be symmetric if it has an SF whose SF-type has the symmetry flag set to true. The SF-type symmetry field was also added in Beryllium. It was always confusing what it meant if there is some combination of symmetric values for the SFC, SFP, and RSP. That is, what if SFC:symmetric is true, SFP:symmetric is false, and RSP:symmetric is true? Or some similar combination? Currently, a reverse RSP is created if the SFP symmetric field is true. This will still be the case in Carbon, but we will also check the SF-types as explained above. In Nitrogen, we'll remove the SFP symmetric field check. I've already updated the SFC Carbon Release Plan to mention these deprecated fields. Regards, Brady _______________________________________________ sfc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev _______________________________________________ sfc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/sfc-dev
