On 09/24/13 18:10, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On 13-09-23 02:27 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >> If you disagree with this approach (that is: if you think that >> "224.0.0.0/24" here is not gradual improvement but a step in the wrong >> direction), > > Of course I'm not saying that. I think that's pretty clear. The only > point we disagree on is the size of the network range, not the > implementation of the feature so by definition of course your patch is a > good initial improvement and should continue on that path. > > If somebody really needs to come along afterward as a separate effort > and expand the range (or at least be able to leverage your work to do so > in their own private builds) then that can happen. Thanks, and that's really what I consider necessary. We agree that the change is not big or hard. It's just that - I can't convincingly argue the change in the commit message, - security is in the picture (and I can't argue it isn't), - hence I *really* don't want my S-o-b on the change. I'm not opposing the change at all, I just don't want my name on it, because I *can't prove* that it's secure. For the restrictive prefix I have at least public references. Thanks, Laszlo -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list