In addition to Armando's suggestion to split the effort into SG and FWaaS, I would like to suggest to break down the goal of this work into two points: (a) to define an API to enable logging for a specific set of rules or similar ones, and (b) to define logging format (if necessary). As far as I read through the proposal, (a) looks a more important thing. Right?
At the begging of the proposed spec, the demand that operators want to enable logging for a specific sg rule(s), sg or project is discussed. However, logging format is discussed in the latter half. To satisfy the demand from operators, there is no need to define a logging format. If they can request to enable logging for a specific set of rules or something, the demand will be satisfied.
(Copy of my comment in the spec review)
In addition to Armando's suggestion to split the effort into SG and FWaaS, I would like to suggest to break down the goal of this work into two points: (a) to define an API to enable logging for a specific set of rules or similar ones, and (b) to define logging format (if necessary). As far as I read through the proposal, (a) looks a more important thing. Right?
At the begging of the proposed spec, the demand that operators want to enable logging for a specific sg rule(s), sg or project is discussed. However, logging format is discussed in the latter half. To satisfy the demand from operators, there is no need to define a logging format. If they can request to enable logging for a specific set of rules or something, the demand will be satisfied.