Skip to content

config: clarify xDS DiscoveryRequest behavior#8334

Merged
htuch merged 2 commits intoenvoyproxy:masterfrom
fredlas:TOD_todo_xds
Sep 26, 2019
Merged

config: clarify xDS DiscoveryRequest behavior#8334
htuch merged 2 commits intoenvoyproxy:masterfrom
fredlas:TOD_todo_xds

Conversation

@fredlas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@fredlas fredlas commented Sep 23, 2019

Clarifies comments in discovery.proto about when response_nonce is(n't) set for (Delta)DiscoveryRequest. Also left a TODO in grpc_mux_impl_test.cc where spec-deviating behavior is expected.

Risk Level: none
Testing: comment-only change

Signed-off-by: Fred Douglas <fredlas@google.com>
// to a previous DeltaDiscoveryResponse, the response_nonce must be the
// nonce in the DeltaDiscoveryResponse.
// Otherwise response_nonce must be omitted.
// Otherwise (unlike in DiscoveryRequest) response_nonce must be omitted.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What are the possibility of otherwise?
First request on the wire is an obvious one. What else?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When the DeltaDiscoveryRequest is being used as an actual request, i.e., "here are names of resources I am newly (un)interested in". This is getting into what I believe @htuch has mentioned, that these (Delta)DiscoveryRequest messages are a mix of two functionalities that would perhaps be better as explicitly separate messages: informing the server of Envoy's interest in resources, and ACKing server messages. With such a separation, this sort of rule wouldn't even need to be mentioned.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, in UDPA we will make this separation. I think the clarifying comments are helpful in v2 incremental xDS, thanks @fredlas.

// to a previous DeltaDiscoveryResponse, the response_nonce must be the
// nonce in the DeltaDiscoveryResponse.
// Otherwise response_nonce must be omitted.
// Otherwise (unlike in DiscoveryRequest) response_nonce must be omitted.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, in UDPA we will make this separation. I think the clarifying comments are helpful in v2 incremental xDS, thanks @fredlas.

@htuch
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

htuch commented Sep 25, 2019

@fredlas can you merge master and potentially fix_format? I landed some major proto reformat PRs in the last day or so. Ta.

Signed-off-by: Fred Douglas <fredlas@google.com>
@fredlas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

fredlas commented Sep 26, 2019

Done.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@htuch htuch left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks!

@htuch htuch merged commit d6964e5 into envoyproxy:master Sep 26, 2019
danzh2010 pushed a commit to danzh2010/envoy that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2019
Clarifies comments in discovery.proto about when response_nonce is(n't) set for (Delta)DiscoveryRequest. Also left a TODO in grpc_mux_impl_test.cc where spec-deviating behavior is expected.

Risk Level: none
Testing: comment-only change

Signed-off-by: Fred Douglas <fredlas@google.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants