James Carlson wrote:
Sebastien Roy writes:
On Sat, 2009-03-21 at 13:37 -0700, Peter Memishian wrote:
> > The Interface Taxonomy document has this to say about Committed:
> >
> > We publish the specification of these interfaces, typically as manual
> > pages or other product documentation.
> >
> > I guess what you propose above could be "other product documentation", but
> > it feels a bit loose.
>
> Given that the intended use is for testing scripts it should be okay or
> perhaps we should relax the stability level for now. I am open to
> suggestions.
I don't feel too strongly about this; interested in what others think.
Uncommitted might be more appropriate. It's more appropriate for
"experimental" interfaces, which this seems to be.
Yep. Either Uncommitted or even Consolidation Private would be fine
here, just to avoid the need to include it in the man page.
If you choose Consolidation Private, then you have a lot more
flexibility in the future. If we think this really is experimental
stuff, or is only useful for our own internal testing, then that level
is appropriate. If we expect this to be used by 3rd party ISVs or end
users, then Uncommitted is probably better. Of course, its easy to
raise Commitment level, and hard to reduce it. So I'd vote for
Consolidation Private, at least for now.
-- Garrett
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
