----- "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@redhat.com> wrote:
diff --git a/docs/schemas/storageencryption.rng b/docs/schemas/storageencryption.rng --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/schemas/storageencryption.rng @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ <snip> + <element name='encryption'> + <attribute name='format'> + <choice> + <value>unencrypted</value> + <value>default</value> + <value>qcow</value> + </choice> + </attribute>
I don't think we should include 'unencrypted' here. If a volume is not encrypted, we should simply omit the <encryption> element entirely in the domain / storage volume XML doc. Fixed.
+ <element name='secret'> + <attribute name='type'> + <choice> + <value>passphrase</value> + </choice> + </attribute> + <optional> + <attribute name='secret_id'> + <text/> + </attribute>
Lets just call this attribute 'uuid' - no need to have the word 'secret' prefixed on it too.
Fixed. I'd prefer to keep this attribute defined a generic string (as opposed to the strict hexadecimal UUID format) because some of the possible remote backends might require a different identifier format. <snip>
Tiny indentation bug crept in there. <snip> And there too. Fixed both.
Thanks for the review, Mirek