<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Referring to the bug <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1072734">
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1072734</a>, I would like to get some thoughts around our API validation approach.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Are we looking at enhancing the API validations in Grizzly, or Nova v3 spec to ensure that all validations are made consistently “after” the Nova API layer?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Currently, image and flavor uuids are validated upfront in the v2 API, however volume uuid validation does not happen at this stage.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Though I agree with Dan’s thoughts on the performance hit, ensuring that validations are consistently made for images and volumes enhances usability.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can we consider this change for v2 API?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black">Rohit Karajgi</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black"> | Lead Engineer | NTT Data Global Technology Services Private
Ltd |<b> w.</b> +91.20.6604.1500 x 378 | <b>m.</b> +91 992.242.9639 | </span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><a href="mailto:rohit.karajgi@nttdata.com"><span style="color:blue">rohit.karajgi@nttdata.com</span></a></span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br clear="both">
______________________________________________________________________<BR>
Disclaimer:This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, copying or forwarding<BR>
</body>
</html>