----- "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange(a)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