hi Seb Sebastien Roy wrote: > (I'm adding clearview-discuss as well, since I think this is related > to the work that Max is doing) > thanks for picking up on this and widening the discussion! > Alan Maguire wrote: >> hi folks >> >> i've posted a brief blog entry describing the Phase 1 reworking of >> nwamd to become an SMF delegated restarter, and described a proposed >> instance naming scheme for the various entities that nwamd manages >> there. see: >> >> http://blogs.sun.com/amaguire/entry/nwam_phase_1_smf_restarter >> >> ..and some more details of the nwamd design are at: >> >> http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nwam/p1spec/daemon/ >> >> all comments (on nwam-discuss of course) are welcome! > > I'm unclear about the implications of data-link instances being under > the "auto" namespace. From past discussions we've had between the > Clearview, NWAM, and SMF teams, I was under the impression that there > was consensus that data-link interfaces should be represented as SMF > instances regardless of whether NWAM is enabled. Is that not the case? thanks for raising this issue! i'm afraid i wasn't aware of this requirement. would it be possible to reconstruct some of the details of these discussions here? (i tried to locate more information relevant to this awhile ago, but had no success unfortunately). what i'm interested in specifically is this - in the "NWAM disabled" case, is it the case that the SMF representation of datalinks is intended to be simply a repository of datalink configuration information, or are the datalink instance states also intended to reflect link state? (e.g. a wireless datalink might be "online" if connected to a WLAN). if the instances are to be used in the non-NWAM case, as an administrator, i'd expect some sort of coordination between link state and SMF instance state i think.
the intent of the use of the "auto" namespace in the current design was to underline the fact that the instances relate to "NWAM mode" only, so if that's not the case, i agree that the "auto" prefix is misleading. > Or is it simply that NWAM will always be enabled in Phase I? > it won't, which makes me think this needs a lot more work in light of the consideration you've mentioned above. thanks again! alan
