Open Stack

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Melanie Witt <melwitt at yahoo-inc.com>wrote:

> On Aug 15, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
> > +1 from me as long as this wouldn't change anything for the EC2 API's
> security groups support, which I assume it won't.
>
> Correct, it's unrelated to the ec2 api.
>
> We discussed briefly in the nova meeting today and there was consensus
> that removing the standalone associate/disassociate actions should happen.
>
> Now the question is whether to keep the server create piece and not remove
> the extension entirely. The concern is about a delay in the newly
> provisioned instance being associated with the desired security groups.
> With the extension, the instance gets the desired security groups before
> the instance is active (I think). Without the extension, the client would
> receive the active instance and then call neutron to associate it with the
> desired security groups.
>
> Would such a delay in associating with security groups be a problem?
>

I think we should keep the capability to set the security group on instance
creation, so those who care about this sort of race condition can avoid if
they want to.

+1 to removing the associate/disassociate actions though

Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130816/51857896/attachment.html>