Peter Memishian wrote: > > The support for the "key" dladm(1M) parameter to refer to an aggregation > > is there strictly for backward compatibility. The preferred method to > > refer to an aggregation link is by name, and it's awkward in the > > documentation to always say that one can either use an integer key or a > > link name. Such statements are numerous since there are a number of > > aggregation dladm subcommands. > > > > I'm thinking that it would be appropriate to remove all references to > > keys from the documentation, and only leave support for it in the command > > as an undocumented thing to not break existing scripts and trained > > fingers... Do others see this as problematic? > > It makes me a bit uncomfortable to completely eliminate something from the > manpage that is still a committed part of the interface, though I agree > it's clunky to lug it around throughout the manpage. Maybe on first > reference we could mention that a key is also supported (though use of > link name should be preferred) and point the reader to a NOTES section > that provides additional background on how link names are constructed when > keys are used and other details like that?
That seems like a good compromise. I'll see what I can whip up. -Seb
