Sowmini.Varadhan at Sun.COM wrote: > On (12/07/07 13:37), 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 > > Another point to consider is that as I recall, the IEEE802.3ad spec itself > prefers (preferred?) to use the clunkier method of addressing links by > key. Did that change at some point?
The spec is a protocol spec. The administrator does not need to deal with keys, as they can be automatically generated by the software, and dealt with entirely within the protocol stack. They're not really adminsitrative objects. -Seb
