)]}'
{"/PATCHSET_LEVEL":[{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"77dd04320798522fcc7b4ab212250969201d7fa2","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"ae5a1b77_12bb1f87","updated":"2023-03-09 21:05:16.000000000","message":"Slawek, what\u0027s the strategy here regarding stable branches? Will we have to backport the neutron fix in all stable branches covered by the tempest plugin before landing this patch? This would imply landing both revision_number addition to Port Groups as well as the metadata patch. (This will include a number of on-startup \"migrations\" to populate existing Port Groups with revision numbers and missing ACLs).","commit_id":"aaa5b5d0336b173f8d8ee9e1795095283d3a4861"},{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"f7545b0430035bcdeb01855b03aebbd00b735fd9","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"0daf01fc_b539f693","updated":"2023-03-29 19:43:34.000000000","message":"The related bug is closed as Won\u0027t Fix. This patch should be abandoned.","commit_id":"aaa5b5d0336b173f8d8ee9e1795095283d3a4861"},{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"1e3086e56d7fb7fbe70d2b01d14d902e7875b9b8","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"af3eb1b9_eaaff665","updated":"2023-03-09 14:01:16.000000000","message":"master passes (through depends-on) and stable branches fail, as expected.","commit_id":"aaa5b5d0336b173f8d8ee9e1795095283d3a4861"},{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"870c7010470784554a69c1033e67b27919a0af22","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"4699517c_2480708e","updated":"2023-03-09 00:47:33.000000000","message":"recheck","commit_id":"aaa5b5d0336b173f8d8ee9e1795095283d3a4861"},{"author":{"_account_id":11975,"name":"Slawek Kaplonski","email":"skaplons@redhat.com","username":"slaweq"},"change_message_id":"055a7f988a09928fefd404ea6d38b6f8d63f49d5","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"cac61f44_d0cc662b","in_reply_to":"53c4c086_3dba7340","updated":"2023-03-14 16:29:52.000000000","message":"Let\u0027s add it as topic for the next drivers meeting then: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/NeutronDrivers and discuss it on Friday, is that ok for You?","commit_id":"aaa5b5d0336b173f8d8ee9e1795095283d3a4861"},{"author":{"_account_id":11975,"name":"Slawek Kaplonski","email":"skaplons@redhat.com","username":"slaweq"},"change_message_id":"91766178c08d4b44a6be5cb66dbac0e6e7963ccd","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"b6517f00_bb9b099c","in_reply_to":"ae5a1b77_12bb1f87","updated":"2023-03-10 07:50:55.000000000","message":"TBH I\u0027m not sure. I did this patch more to see that Your fix is working but I have some doubts even if we should \"fix\" this issue in Neutron.\nThere are at least 2 reasons for that:\n\n1. it\u0027s not \"discoverable\" for users so they will not know if they should or don\u0027t need to add such ingress rule manually,\n\n2. It works fine in default case but what if user will remove rule which allows all egress traffic from SG (it\u0027s fine to do so) -  then metadata will not work anymore and we don\u0027t care really about it. We assume in such case that user know what he is doing. Maybe it should be the same for stateless SGs? If user creates stateless SG maybe we should assume what he is doing and allow him to add rule to allow such ingress traffic.\nCurrently we are relying on SG rule which allows egress traffic and which is just added to SG by default and trying to hardcode in the backend rule to allow ingress traffic from 169.254.169.254. But what if user would like to have stateless SG rule and not allow this traffic from 169.254.169.254 (I don\u0027t know if there is real life case for that, but theoretically it can be, right?) - then this is not possible.\n\nThere is PTG coming in less then 3 weeks. Maybe we should add topic about it there and see what other people think about it?","commit_id":"aaa5b5d0336b173f8d8ee9e1795095283d3a4861"},{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"7c32cfd1064625cb7cfd8a6eb25bbc4a5f472668","unresolved":false,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"53c4c086_3dba7340","in_reply_to":"b6517f00_bb9b099c","updated":"2023-03-11 00:27:45.000000000","message":"If discoverability is of concern, we could expose the rule in ACL (register a SG rule in db). But I don\u0027t know why anyone would do it. Deleting default allow-related egress rules and then tightening them with specific matches makes sense. But here we already have tightened ACLs. Anyway, discoverability is an option.\n\nTiming wise, I operate on tight schedule for the two bugs (metadata and dhcpv6-stateless/slaac) and I would prefer not to wait for 3 weeks. I also don\u0027t think that decisions must be bound to particular community events. If you believe that there\u0027s discussion to happen, let\u0027s bring it up in openstack-dev@ ML (or other community venue? I dunno what\u0027s the best venue today).\n\nI think that \"metadata and NA/RA services should work by default\" is not a controversial opinion. Discoverability of these rules may be a question worth a discussion. Do you want me to send an email? (or let me know how else to drive the decision)","commit_id":"aaa5b5d0336b173f8d8ee9e1795095283d3a4861"},{"author":{"_account_id":9656,"name":"Ihar Hrachyshka","email":"ihrachys@redhat.com","username":"ihrachys","status":"Red Hat Networking Systems Engineer"},"change_message_id":"6b6ce10aeb89274e9ef6f3900278d86bc2571f55","unresolved":true,"context_lines":[],"source_content_type":"","patch_set":2,"id":"736c7f16_d7da8111","in_reply_to":"cac61f44_d0cc662b","updated":"2023-03-14 16:39:42.000000000","message":"Sure. I\u0027ve added the topic to the agenda, and I will join the next meeting (this Friday).","commit_id":"aaa5b5d0336b173f8d8ee9e1795095283d3a4861"}]}