I vote address them (ipv6_). There's no guarantee of forward compatibility with a new protocol and this way it can't be confused with a (non-existant) selection method for IPv4, either. Also, future updates of other protocols would require a new attribute and break the API less. -Anthony
>OK - any suggestions for the names of API attributes? > >The PDF[0] shared does not specify the names of the attributes, so I had >two ideas for the names of the two new attributes being added to the >Subnet resource: > >Either prefix them with "ipv6" > >* ipv6_ra_mode >* ipv6_address_mode > >Or don't prefix them: > >* ra_mode >* address_mode > >Thoughts? > >[0]: >https://www.dropbox.com/s/rq8xmbruqthef38/IPv6%20Two%20Modes%20v2.0.pdf > >-- >Sean M. Collins >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
