> > To bring this back to where it started, the issues are (for PSARC): > > - given that there will be future work that wants to generate > > parsable output, do we need an opinion written up (for this case) > > to serve as the notice of our decision about it or is it sufficient > > to just cite this case? > > The bottom line is that we've written a few "kitchen sink" utilities. > That's the first less than ideal thing that we did. Given where we > are, I'm not inclined to approve this case as anything else than a > "one off".
As per the subject line, we're really only looking for approval with dladm. As per the case "Overview" section, we (Solaris Networking) intend to follow the dladm approach with future networking CLIs -- but each of those will have their own case and stand on their own. That said, I don't see an issue with gently encouraging others who may be inventing a new parseable CLI to follow the simple approach outlined here. -- meem
