Re: [PATCH 0/6] [VERY RFC] Migration Stream v2

[Frediano Ziglio <frediano.ziglio@citrix.com>]

On Mon, 2014-04-14 at 19:11 +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 14/04/14 18:49, George Dunlap wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Andrew Cooper
> > <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/04/14 11:42, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 19:28 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>>> Some design decisions have been take very deliberately (e.g. splitting the
> >>>> logic for PV and hvm migration) while others have been more along the lines of
> >>>> "I think its a sensible thing to do given a lack of any evidence/opinion to
> >>>> the contrary".
> >>> Is there some indication of which is which?
> >>
> >> Not really, given the clean rewrite, and also that it is only partially
> >> complete.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Should we check in the desigh/spec which was previously posted as part
> >>> of this?
> >>
> >> I knew I forgot something...
> >>
> >> http://xenbits.xen.org/people/andrewcoop/domain-save-format-E.pdf
> > 
> > 
> > What did you imagine might constitute an "Optional" record?
> 
> This was something Ian Jackson asked for and it seems like a useful
> capabilitity to have for future use.  Not sure what it might be used for
> yet.
> 
> David

Upper layers can stick stuff like machine descriptions (ie: "Web server
for selling") or other more technical (original host name/ip, specific
modifications of host like the "User agent" stuff in http, preferred
migration encapsulation).

The definition of optional is you can discard it and machine will work
the same.

Frediano