The main reason we didn't specify was to reserve the right to change
the default. Rob told me that you said on the extensibility call
today that we'd consider switching the default to secure. So if we
want to do that then we'd better be careful about how we phrase it.
Anyway, how about the appended additional change, then?
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 03:17:04PM -0700, Justin Pettit wrote:
> Looks good.
>
> In the line above your change, should we just state what the default
> is? I remember we used to not want to put OVS's defaults into the
> OVSDB spec. However, we now do put our defaults in, so I think it
> would be clearer if we just go ahead and do it for this one, too.
--8<--------------------------cut here-------------------------->8--
From: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 15:53:19 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] vswitch.xml: Describe current default fail_mode.
We are thinking about changing the default, so this leaves that open
for the future.
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
---
vswitchd/vswitch.xml | 5 ++++-
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/vswitchd/vswitch.xml b/vswitchd/vswitch.xml
index 308af51..94760cc 100644
--- a/vswitchd/vswitch.xml
+++ b/vswitchd/vswitch.xml
@@ -409,7 +409,10 @@
any defined controllers forever.</dd>
</dl>
</p>
- <p>If this value is unset, the default is implementation-specific.</p>
+ <p>
+ The default is <code>standalone</code> if the value is unset, but
+ future versions of Open vSwitch may change the default.
+ </p>
<p>
The <code>standalone</code> mode can create forwarding loops on a
bridge that has more than one uplink port unless STP is enabled. To
--
1.7.2.5
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
