)]}'
{"/COMMIT_MSG":[{"author":{"_account_id":4694,"name":"Miguel Lavalle","email":"miguel@mlavalle.com","username":"minsel"},"change_message_id":"4e2956d590d6af696de2189ddbfe9dec5700c436","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":4,"context_line":"Commit:     Hongbin Lu \u003chongbin.lu@huawei.com\u003e"},{"line_number":5,"context_line":"CommitDate: 2018-09-07 21:37:10 +0000"},{"line_number":6,"context_line":""},{"line_number":7,"context_line":"[WIP] Fwaas: add support for priority"},{"line_number":8,"context_line":""},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"Change-Id: Ib654804169841c848a97a8a932d9a1de26706238"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":"Implements: blueprint firewall-policy-priority"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-gerrit-commit-message","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_026fddf9","line":7,"range":{"start_line":7,"start_character":0,"end_line":7,"end_character":6},"updated":"2018-10-16 23:12:01.000000000","message":"would remove the wip and add a paragraph with an overview of what is proposed. We want to attract reviews. I asked the FWaaS team to review the specs during their latest weekly meeting: http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/fwaas/2018/fwaas.2018-10-11-14.05.log.html#l-54","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"}],"specs/stein/fwaas-2.0-policy-priority.rst":[{"author":{"_account_id":4694,"name":"Miguel Lavalle","email":"miguel@mlavalle.com","username":"minsel"},"change_message_id":"4e2956d590d6af696de2189ddbfe9dec5700c436","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":8,"context_line":"Firewall as a Service API 2.0 Firewall Policy Priority Support"},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":""},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"**Launchpad blueprint:**"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":""},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"| https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/firewall-policy-priority"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"This spec introduces an enhancement to Firewall as a Service (FWaaS) API 2.0"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"for firewall policy\u0027s priority."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_e200a137","line":13,"range":{"start_line":11,"start_character":0,"end_line":13,"end_character":73},"updated":"2018-10-16 23:12:01.000000000","message":"Although I cannot see the rendering anymore, having seen the other 3 specs, I know this produces a weird rendering. \n\nI suggest following this model: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/neutron-specs/tree/specs/rocky/port-forwarding.rst#n11. The rendering looks like this: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/rocky/port-forwarding.html","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":27654,"name":"Hongbin Lu","email":"kira034@163.com","username":"hongbin.lu"},"change_message_id":"a6437f02a7011faffdf564b36487cd1eb91da459","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":8,"context_line":"Firewall as a Service API 2.0 Firewall Policy Priority Support"},{"line_number":9,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":10,"context_line":""},{"line_number":11,"context_line":"**Launchpad blueprint:**"},{"line_number":12,"context_line":""},{"line_number":13,"context_line":"| https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/firewall-policy-priority"},{"line_number":14,"context_line":""},{"line_number":15,"context_line":"This spec introduces an enhancement to Firewall as a Service (FWaaS) API 2.0"},{"line_number":16,"context_line":"for firewall policy\u0027s priority."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_456663be","line":13,"range":{"start_line":11,"start_character":0,"end_line":13,"end_character":73},"in_reply_to":"3f79a3b5_e200a137","updated":"2018-10-26 21:26:15.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":6995,"name":"Sridar Kandaswamy","email":"skandasw@yahoo.com","username":"skandasw"},"change_message_id":"8b24c6e274d381ad509134539dfad68e8cde8082","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":23,"context_line":"following limitation:"},{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"    When there are multiple firewall groups associated with a specific"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"    Neutron port, there is no position or priority between the different"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"    firewall groups. Some deterministic behavior must be defined in order to"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"    resolve the action to be taken when some firewall groups determine an"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"    \"allow\" action while other firewall groups determine a \"deny\" action."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_216d172f","line":26,"updated":"2018-10-18 05:53:30.000000000","message":"We do not support multiple FWG on a port today. I am wondering if we can look at this from the view of Policies associated by different roles (admin or tenant for ex). An admin may want to always associate an Infosec policy on a port (which would take higher priority implicitly based on the role) and the tenant may add a policy as well that is specific to applications they are running. Would this be an use case u are targeting ?","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":27654,"name":"Hongbin Lu","email":"kira034@163.com","username":"hongbin.lu"},"change_message_id":"dbefdf167774ff2a8850d9bb6be8aba60a6d2e3c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":23,"context_line":"following limitation:"},{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"    When there are multiple firewall groups associated with a specific"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"    Neutron port, there is no position or priority between the different"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"    firewall groups. Some deterministic behavior must be defined in order to"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"    resolve the action to be taken when some firewall groups determine an"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"    \"allow\" action while other firewall groups determine a \"deny\" action."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_c8f20d6a","line":26,"in_reply_to":"3f79a3b5_216d172f","updated":"2018-10-22 02:14:39.000000000","message":"@Sridar,\n\nIf I understanding your remark correctly, what you suggested is to replace \"priority\" (which is a number) with a higher level concept called \"role\". When multiple firewall groups associated with the same port, the order of rules are base on their policy\u0027s roles? In general, I am open to this alternative, but I want to clarify a few things.\n\nHow we decide the priority of different roles? I assume you mean there are two set of roles (\"admin\" and \"tenant\") and the \"admin\" role takes a higher priority of \"tenant\" role? but if we allows users to create their own \"roles\", how we implicitly decide the order across \"admin\", \"tenant\" and user-created roles? I assume each \"role\" will still need an integer-type attribute to decide that? or there is any other approach available?","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":27654,"name":"Hongbin Lu","email":"kira034@163.com","username":"hongbin.lu"},"change_message_id":"a6437f02a7011faffdf564b36487cd1eb91da459","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":23,"context_line":"following limitation:"},{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"    When there are multiple firewall groups associated with a specific"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"    Neutron port, there is no position or priority between the different"},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"    firewall groups. Some deterministic behavior must be defined in order to"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"    resolve the action to be taken when some firewall groups determine an"},{"line_number":29,"context_line":"    \"allow\" action while other firewall groups determine a \"deny\" action."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_250567c1","line":26,"in_reply_to":"3f79a3b5_216d172f","updated":"2018-10-26 21:26:15.000000000","message":"I tried to modify the spec to address this comment, but please let me know if I misunderstood something. Done.","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":4694,"name":"Miguel Lavalle","email":"miguel@mlavalle.com","username":"minsel"},"change_message_id":"4e2956d590d6af696de2189ddbfe9dec5700c436","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":36,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":37,"context_line":""},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"Introduce an attribute ``priority`` to firewall_policy. When there are"},{"line_number":39,"context_line":"multiple firewall groups associated with a specific Neutron port,"},{"line_number":40,"context_line":"the priority of the firewall policies decide which policies will apply."},{"line_number":41,"context_line":"The priority is an integer between 0 and 65535."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":"Firewall policies with higher priority will overwrite the one with lower"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_429b9514","line":39,"range":{"start_line":39,"start_character":52,"end_line":39,"end_character":64},"updated":"2018-10-16 23:12:01.000000000","message":"and subnets per https://review.openstack.org/#/c/600261, right?","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":27654,"name":"Hongbin Lu","email":"kira034@163.com","username":"hongbin.lu"},"change_message_id":"a6437f02a7011faffdf564b36487cd1eb91da459","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":36,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":37,"context_line":""},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"Introduce an attribute ``priority`` to firewall_policy. When there are"},{"line_number":39,"context_line":"multiple firewall groups associated with a specific Neutron port,"},{"line_number":40,"context_line":"the priority of the firewall policies decide which policies will apply."},{"line_number":41,"context_line":"The priority is an integer between 0 and 65535."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":"Firewall policies with higher priority will overwrite the one with lower"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_85f55bce","line":39,"range":{"start_line":39,"start_character":52,"end_line":39,"end_character":64},"in_reply_to":"3f79a3b5_429b9514","updated":"2018-10-26 21:26:15.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":4694,"name":"Miguel Lavalle","email":"miguel@mlavalle.com","username":"minsel"},"change_message_id":"4e2956d590d6af696de2189ddbfe9dec5700c436","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":41,"context_line":"The priority is an integer between 0 and 65535."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":"Firewall policies with higher priority will overwrite the one with lower"},{"line_number":43,"context_line":"priority. However, if there are multiple policies with the same priority,"},{"line_number":44,"context_line":"it requires some deterministic behavior to be defined in order to resolve"},{"line_number":45,"context_line":"the action to be taken."},{"line_number":46,"context_line":""},{"line_number":47,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_62bb3174","line":44,"range":{"start_line":44,"start_character":3,"end_line":44,"end_character":39},"updated":"2018-10-16 23:12:01.000000000","message":"Would this be determined by the implementation? Or do we want to specify it here?","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":27654,"name":"Hongbin Lu","email":"kira034@163.com","username":"hongbin.lu"},"change_message_id":"a6437f02a7011faffdf564b36487cd1eb91da459","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":41,"context_line":"The priority is an integer between 0 and 65535."},{"line_number":42,"context_line":"Firewall policies with higher priority will overwrite the one with lower"},{"line_number":43,"context_line":"priority. However, if there are multiple policies with the same priority,"},{"line_number":44,"context_line":"it requires some deterministic behavior to be defined in order to resolve"},{"line_number":45,"context_line":"the action to be taken."},{"line_number":46,"context_line":""},{"line_number":47,"context_line":""}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_65f6ffd7","line":44,"range":{"start_line":44,"start_character":3,"end_line":44,"end_character":39},"in_reply_to":"3f79a3b5_62bb3174","updated":"2018-10-26 21:26:15.000000000","message":"Added more wording to clarify it. Done.","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":4694,"name":"Miguel Lavalle","email":"miguel@mlavalle.com","username":"minsel"},"change_message_id":"4e2956d590d6af696de2189ddbfe9dec5700c436","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":96,"context_line":"Data Model Impact"},{"line_number":97,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":98,"context_line":""},{"line_number":99,"context_line":"TBD"},{"line_number":100,"context_line":""},{"line_number":101,"context_line":""},{"line_number":102,"context_line":"Security Impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_8263ed18","line":99,"updated":"2018-10-16 23:12:01.000000000","message":"All we need to do is to add a column here: https://github.com/openstack/neutron-fwaas/blob/master/neutron_fwaas/db/firewall/v2/firewall_db_v2.py#L148\n\nRight?","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":27654,"name":"Hongbin Lu","email":"kira034@163.com","username":"hongbin.lu"},"change_message_id":"a6437f02a7011faffdf564b36487cd1eb91da459","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":96,"context_line":"Data Model Impact"},{"line_number":97,"context_line":"-----------------"},{"line_number":98,"context_line":""},{"line_number":99,"context_line":"TBD"},{"line_number":100,"context_line":""},{"line_number":101,"context_line":""},{"line_number":102,"context_line":"Security Impact"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_052b8b32","line":99,"in_reply_to":"3f79a3b5_8263ed18","updated":"2018-10-26 21:26:15.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":15471,"name":"Nguyen Phuong An","email":"annp.cs51@gmail.com","username":"An-FVL"},"change_message_id":"74ac6efa343551d2e94685e29693280b2bde4c6f","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":167,"context_line":"* REST API"},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"* DB Schema"},{"line_number":169,"context_line":"* CLI update"},{"line_number":170,"context_line":""},{"line_number":171,"context_line":""},{"line_number":172,"context_line":"Dependencies"},{"line_number":173,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_c7573aca","line":170,"updated":"2018-09-15 05:21:18.000000000","message":"what about driver reference implementation?","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":27654,"name":"Hongbin Lu","email":"kira034@163.com","username":"hongbin.lu"},"change_message_id":"a6437f02a7011faffdf564b36487cd1eb91da459","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":167,"context_line":"* REST API"},{"line_number":168,"context_line":"* DB Schema"},{"line_number":169,"context_line":"* CLI update"},{"line_number":170,"context_line":""},{"line_number":171,"context_line":""},{"line_number":172,"context_line":"Dependencies"},{"line_number":173,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":1,"id":"3f79a3b5_252ec741","line":170,"in_reply_to":"3f79a3b5_c7573aca","updated":"2018-10-26 21:26:15.000000000","message":"Done","commit_id":"805bd9976e2b8950c0c3478416492505e7554624"},{"author":{"_account_id":6995,"name":"Sridar Kandaswamy","email":"skandasw@yahoo.com","username":"skandasw"},"change_message_id":"0342dec8c62d52aa4b8f6bd58091b941eb12782c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":19,"context_line":""},{"line_number":20,"context_line":"Right now, the FWaaS API doesn\u0027t support multiple firewall groups associated"},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"with the same Neutron port. This limitation is an obstacle for some"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"enterprise use cases in which a more descriptive and flexible model"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":"is needed."},{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"For example, suppose there are multiple firewall groups that are created"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"3f79a3b5_7ab1d8ff","line":22,"updated":"2018-11-08 06:43:30.000000000","message":"Thanks Hongbin. Can we think in terms of multiple policies in a FWG ? And as a first step associate either an admin or tenant role to the policy. Or even if we did associate a priority with the Policy we can think in terms of:\n\nFWG TEST\n  INGRESS\n    PolicyA  100\n    PolicyB  200\n    PolicyC  300\n\n  EGRESS\n    Policy F 100\n\n  PORTS\n    P1, P4\n\nSo then the way we compose the rules can be in sequence according to the Policy Priority.\n\n\nThis is one thought if we are particular and have use cases with Priorities. Something like Admin or Tenant can be a simple step.\n\nLets discuss this more. I think we can move fwd to a solution.","commit_id":"5496039f10dfd6c538c40bec5847246b9b1f7c67"},{"author":{"_account_id":27654,"name":"Hongbin Lu","email":"kira034@163.com","username":"hongbin.lu"},"change_message_id":"ad3626f55cfd35682730e1da0e7b562cf2570a18","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":19,"context_line":""},{"line_number":20,"context_line":"Right now, the FWaaS API doesn\u0027t support multiple firewall groups associated"},{"line_number":21,"context_line":"with the same Neutron port. This limitation is an obstacle for some"},{"line_number":22,"context_line":"enterprise use cases in which a more descriptive and flexible model"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":"is needed."},{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"For example, suppose there are multiple firewall groups that are created"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"3f79a3b5_d93cfe92","line":22,"in_reply_to":"3f79a3b5_7ab1d8ff","updated":"2018-11-20 22:00:47.000000000","message":"@Sridar,\n\nI just came back from the Berlin Summit and managed to get back to your comment.\n\nFirst, let me rephrase what your comment and make sure I correctly understand what your mean. Currently, the mapping between firewall groups and firewall policies (ingress/egress) is one-to-one. Your suggestion is to turn it into a one-to-many mapping. Is that correct?\n\nFrom my side, the real requirement is a more flexible and comprehensive model that allows us to address different use cases from enterprise. By analyzing the existing use cases and potential future use cases, I think it is a quite intuitive and reasonable to have multiple FWGs applied on a single port. The alternative approach you suggested (multiple firewall policies on a single FWG) might address some of the problems but doesn\u0027t seem to be enough.\n\nI tried to summarize the requirements as below:\n\n1. Encapsulation of business logic. In production, it is quite common to have one FWG defined for one business logic. For example, we could have one FWG defined for web, another FWG defined for windows, and yet another FWG defined for quarantined application. As a result, if there is a VM that hosts a web server with windows operating system. We can apply both \"web\" and \"windows\" FWGs to this VM. Later, if we detect the VM is compromised, we can add \"quarantined\" FWG as well. After the problem is resolved, we remove the \"quarantined\" FWG and the VM is restored as it was.\n\n2. Dynamic firewall rule. The use case is described in another spec [1]. As a summary, we want to have the ability to add/remove FWG at runtime. The multiple FWGs per neutron port model allows us to apply \"static\" FWG to port on creation, and apply \"dynamic\" FWG to port at runtime. An example is (again) the compromised VM example. We want to let the VM to be created with \"web\" FWG and add/remove \"quarantined\" FWG at the runtime.\n\nBased on above requirements, this spec proposes to add support for multiple FWGs per port. The introduction of \"priority\" attribute is simply for resolving the potential conflicting between FWGs on the same port. I am really open for suggestions if there are better alternative.\n\nTo the bottom, I think the support of multiple FWGs per port is critical because the lack of this support might block a bunch of use cases and it cannot be easily work-around. However, if you have a better alternative, we can discuss it further.\n\n[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/597724/","commit_id":"5496039f10dfd6c538c40bec5847246b9b1f7c67"},{"author":{"_account_id":6995,"name":"Sridar Kandaswamy","email":"skandasw@yahoo.com","username":"skandasw"},"change_message_id":"0342dec8c62d52aa4b8f6bd58091b941eb12782c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":22,"context_line":"enterprise use cases in which a more descriptive and flexible model"},{"line_number":23,"context_line":"is needed."},{"line_number":24,"context_line":""},{"line_number":25,"context_line":"For example, suppose there are multiple firewall groups that are created"},{"line_number":26,"context_line":"for different roles in a company (i.e. R\u0026D, manager, HR, etc.)."},{"line_number":27,"context_line":"Each role has specific access control to various assets in the company,"},{"line_number":28,"context_line":"which are enforced by the firewall rules in each firewall group."}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"3f79a3b5_7a7f9815","line":25,"updated":"2018-11-08 06:43:30.000000000","message":"I am still wondering if we want to bring this in the notion of priority and associate it with a Policy in a FWG","commit_id":"5496039f10dfd6c538c40bec5847246b9b1f7c67"},{"author":{"_account_id":6995,"name":"Sridar Kandaswamy","email":"skandasw@yahoo.com","username":"skandasw"},"change_message_id":"0342dec8c62d52aa4b8f6bd58091b941eb12782c","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[{"line_number":34,"context_line":"Proposed Change"},{"line_number":35,"context_line":"\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d"},{"line_number":36,"context_line":""},{"line_number":37,"context_line":"Introduce a new concept ``role`` which contains an attribute ``priority``."},{"line_number":38,"context_line":"Each firewall policy has a role which implicitly determines its priority."},{"line_number":39,"context_line":"When there are multiple firewall groups associated with a specific"},{"line_number":40,"context_line":"Neutron port or subnets, the role of the firewall policies decide which"}],"source_content_type":"text/x-rst","patch_set":3,"id":"3f79a3b5_5af65c94","line":37,"updated":"2018-11-08 06:43:30.000000000","message":"I was thinking more to use roles defined in OpenStack rather than create a new Resource in the context of FWaaS.","commit_id":"5496039f10dfd6c538c40bec5847246b9b1f7c67"}]}