Update patch set 2

Patch Set 2: Code-Review-1

(1 comment)

Patch-set: 2
Reviewer: Gerrit User 23804 <23804@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543>
Label: Code-Review=-1, 52c7a8883ff634f56e60be847a503942abcfd544

c9d7f7a309ac21dcac8486b33800b0fc24352bbb

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+{
+  "comments": [
+    {
+      "unresolved": true,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "793afa1c_8faf6b9b",
+        "filename": "specs/2024.1/ml2ovn-partial-support-ovn-interconnect.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 2
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 8,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 23804
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2023-08-31T14:09:05Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "If I\u0027m understanding this spec correctly, this is not specific to OVN interconnect.\nI believe the title is a bit confusing as there\u0027s no support to manage the transit switches; to ensure that CIDrs across the deployments don\u0027t collide; etcetera.\n\nIMO this spec is mostly to allow certain resources to co-exist in the Northbound database along with those owned by Neutron. It does not matter, whether they are OVN IC related, or something else as the sole purpose of this is to avoid Neutron deleting those.\n\nI\u0027d be in favor of renaming the spec for clarity and add the OVN Interconnect use case just as an example of how this can be leveraged.\n\nWhat do you think?",
+      "range": {
+        "startLine": 8,
+        "startChar": 0,
+        "endLine": 8,
+        "endChar": 46
+      },
+      "revId": "c9d7f7a309ac21dcac8486b33800b0fc24352bbb",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    }
+  ]
+}