+1 for the ones “ipv6_” prefix. On Jan 27, 2014, at 1:15 PM, Veiga, Anthony <Anthony_Veiga at cable.comcast.com> wrote: > 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 at lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev