Comment 1 for bug 1659416

Is this an alternate approach to [1], or is the idea to supplement [1]?

If we're considering supplementing [1], I would've expected the proposal herein to leverage the constructs set forth there. For example, perhaps the 'resource_type' (see [1]) here could be 'security_group_rule'.

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/203509/