> > This shows something like the show results I already proposed. > > There's a danger of feeping creaturism here.. we've already departed > from the minimalism expressed in dladm-wifi.pdf (see PSARC 2006/406 > materials), but now the "set" action is taking more sub-actions > (why not have set-tunnel-hop-limit? what about set-wifi-essid?)
Agreed -- I really don't want to have a subcommand for every common tunable. The point of my show-linkcap example was to illustrate that some things that we have historically modeled as properties may be markedly easier to represent through some other means, and that we should explore that space (but perhaps ultimately reject it). -- meem
