Update patch set 5

Patch Set 5:

(2 comments)

Patch-set: 5
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 10342 \u003c10342@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_10115\u003e replied on the change"}
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 10115 \u003c10115@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"REMOVE","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_10115\u003e replied on the change"}

4404912cea192f4bc439c13147fd856a89528d7d

@@ -16,6 +16,23 @@
       "message": "Just some thoughts.",
       "revId": "4404912cea192f4bc439c13147fd856a89528d7d",
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
+    {
+      "unresolved": false,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "90cc40e4_c9c8c0e4",
+        "filename": "/PATCHSET_LEVEL",
+        "patchSetId": 5
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 0,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 10115
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2023-06-29T01:21:13Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "Hi JayF,\nThank you for the quick review. Here is my thought for port_range option.",
+      "revId": "4404912cea192f4bc439c13147fd856a89528d7d",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
     }
   ]
 }

e630fcf831b4d8e8cbc9f185a5afd00317575c34

@@ -705,6 +705,24 @@
       "revId": "e630fcf831b4d8e8cbc9f185a5afd00317575c34",
       "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
     },
+    {
+      "unresolved": true,
+      "key": {
+        "uuid": "b3ad7281_44b721c8",
+        "filename": "specs/bobcat/http-driver.rst",
+        "patchSetId": 1
+      },
+      "lineNbr": 225,
+      "author": {
+        "id": 10115
+      },
+      "writtenOn": "2023-06-29T01:21:13Z",
+      "side": 1,
+      "message": "For port_range, I\u0027d suggest following spec to reduce complexity of this option.\n\n1. If the port_range is not defined, unused ephemeral port is chosen randomly.\n   For most of user case, this satisfies the requirement.\n2. If the port_range is defined, RPC server pick port from the specified range during service launch.\n\n\u003eIs it not possible to limit these connections to a single dest port on each host?\n\nLet me explain the background of this option.\nFor example, Nova has \"conductor.workers\" config parameter and Neutron-server has \"rpc_workers\" config parameter. By specifying more than \"1\" for these configs, multiple RPC workers are launched on single host.\nTherefore, from RPC client-server communication perspective, each RPC worker must have individual destination port number to launch it on a host.\n\nAnd purpose of port_range is to support secure cloud environment which strictly manages network communication using dest/source port at firewall, it would be better that default behavior is random choice from unused ephemeral port.",
+      "parentUuid": "35a98874_5b5795ed",
+      "revId": "e630fcf831b4d8e8cbc9f185a5afd00317575c34",
+      "serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
+    },
     {
       "unresolved": true,
       "key": {