On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 05:47:44PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote: > On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 10:47 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > IMHO that results in a bad structure, because its anot associating > > the related info together, eg having an separate element to turn > > on/off IPV6, and then listing addresses: > > > > <address family='ipv6'/> > > <ip type='ipv6' address='2001:23::2' prefix='48'/> > > <ip type='ipv6' address='fe:33:55::33' prefix='64'/> > > > > vs having the direct association > > > > <address family='ipv6'> > > <ip address='2001:23::2' prefix='48'/> > > <ip address='fe:33:55::33' prefix='64'/> > > </address> > > > > the latter removes the redundancy from specifying address family in > > multiple places > > Ok .. I agree that we should have a container tag like that - we should > probably call it <protocol/> though instead of <address/> > > <protocol family='ipv6'> > <ip .../> > <route .../> > ... other ipv6 specific settings ... > </protocol> That naming works for me Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Libvir-list mailing list Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list