On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:30:05PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 03:20:52PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >> > It's possible to imagine that a switch might want to report additional >> > capabilities related to Geneve beyond just the number of options and >> > how much space they can consume. Some examples include additional >> > restrictions on parsing (if this command is used for non-OVS >> > implementations >> > or OVS changes how it works) and per-packet actions that can't be done >> > generically (such as checksums or encryption). It's not yet clear if >> > these will be necessary or if OpenFlow is the right place to expose >> > them. However, it's easy to do now and there is very little cost so >> > it seems like a good idea to leave some additional reserved space. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> >> >> I'd consider s/pad/zero/ to make it easier for receivers to be sure >> (later) that they're interpreting non-garbage. > > Oh, but it's fine either way: > Acked-by: Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com>
I changed it to 'reserved' since I think that's more canonical and applied this to master. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
