Follow-up in line: >> 1.3 This section seems to be focused entirely on minimizing the set, >> but doesn't seem to discuss any extensibility, either for different >> OpenSolaris-based products or for future releases. For example, what >> if we want to ship OpenSolaris pre-installed on a netbook that has >> only a 3G-cellular networking interface? Similarly, there appears to >> be an eagerness to dispense with an initial user account and focus >> only on the root account, whereas our best practices suggest making >> root a role and defining administrative user accounts. As such, it >> seems this set of parameters can't even reproduce the existing >> OpenSolaris installation; are we asserting a change in direction >> here? Finally, some discussion with the networking team on whether we >> should be setting up default routers or instead/in addition >> configuring a routing protocol client seems worth having; I'm not >> aware such a discussion has occurred? Finally, a nit, but "DNS" here >> should be "DNS resolver" since it's the client that's required, not >> the server. > We were trying to minimize the list of parameters required for a useful > system.When you talk about extensibility, do you mean an interface to > add new or existing parameters which are not included in the minimum set? >
Yes. > Regarding the user account, there is no change in direction. We > discussed about adding an user account and how it may interfere with > existing user accounts (with user database) and decided that it is > optional. If that implies change of direction, I will add user accounts > back to the set. > I think that the minimum set supported by the mechanism needs to include non-root accounts, as it is the preferred configuration; whether any particular application wishes to enforce that as the required configuration is a separate issue in my mind. > We haven't had any specific discussion about default routers with > networking group. I will start a conversation with them. > > I will fix the nit about the DNS resolver. >> >> 2.0, requirement 2: What's the "server" here? I am assuming this >> means "automated installation server", but that's overly specific, I >> think. > It is installation server or the machine where the user adds the > manifests to a service. Do you think changing it "automated installation > server" will make it better? I think it's more a matter of the mechanism being able to run in contexts other than a system booting for the first time or installing. An AI server is an example of that. Dave
