We seem have consensus on doing the validation part, while leaving the extra reporting ("$ neutron qos-rule-support-per-port-type") for a separate RFE if we still find it necessary and we find a reasonable way to do it (vnic type vs binding type vs tenant visibility of binding type)
From what I see in the drivers meeting log, and my conversation with Ihar on IRC http:// eavesdrop. openstack. org/irclogs/ %23openstack- neutron/ %23openstack- neutron. 2016-06- 17.log. html#t2016- 06-17T11: 05:55
We seem have consensus on doing the validation part, while leaving the extra reporting ("$ neutron qos-rule- support- per-port- type") for a separate RFE if we still find it necessary and we find a reasonable way to do it (vnic type vs binding type vs tenant visibility of binding type)