On 05/19/10 10:51 AM, James Carlson wrote:
Moving forward we have a set of work in the area of networking
configuration that spans the range from how servers are typically
configured to the problems NWAM set out to solve. The reason to
structure things that way is exactly to avoid the problems you are
concerned about.
When NWAM first came for review (and then again when it came for review
of Phase 1), PSARC members asked the project team why physical:default
was still present, and why NWAM was just an "option," and indeed _not_
even the default one at that.
The answer was that NWAM would eventually be the only way to configure
the system, and that the project team recognized that it was less good
to have two separate mechanisms, but that this would persist for some
time. At least until NWAM (in Phase 2) eventually grew the features
necessary for enterprise-scale operation.
Then, in the Phase 1 review, the NWAM project team introduced "profiles"
as a key concept in the NWAM architecture which (still, at that time)
was intended to be the future way for configuring interfaces, and which
the ARC members were told was consistent with the SMF goals.
If I'm reading what you've written above correctly, it seems that you're
saying that the future architecture won't necessarily be what was
originally reviewed -- that there is no "Phase 2" and NWAM won't be the
sole mechanism -- and that some higher level work is being done. But
that there's no ARC material available at the moment that describes this.
I don't know what I said above that made you come to that conclusion.
The project named NWAM is done, and we are continuing to work in the
area of network configuration (to solve the problems NWAM set out to solve).
The hard part for the folks on the ARC list, though, is to figure out
how the proposal here eventually morphs into that future architecture.
I know I don't see it. As described in the last opinion, we are (or
were) waiting for future NWAM phases (that I now assume are no longer
happening):
I think you are confusing the name of the project NWAM with the
capabilities of the system going forward. As I said, we are working on
network configuration that spans the range from how servers are
typically configured to the problems NWAM set out to solve.
The fact
that there were clear statements in this thread from project team
members saying that they didn't want to have to understand NWAM profiles
certainly makes it appear that project alignment is one of the problems.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00616.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00626.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00605.html
I don't see anything on those emails where Mark says or implies that he
doesn't want to have to understand NWAM profiles. Hence I think you owe
Mark an apology.
Here's what he wrote in that very first message I cited:
"And the Install team would prefer to not have to understand the
details of an NWAM profile to create one themselves. "
I don't believe I've written anything that requires that I give an
apology to Mark. But if he is indeed offended, I hope that he'll speak
up about it, at least privately, and I'll be happy to reply. Certainly
no offense of any sort was intended.
Mark clealy referred to "the Install team". You replaced that by
"project team members". Those are completely separate. None from the
Install team have commented on this email thread.
Mark later clarified why the Install team want to decouple themselves
from everything which doesn't look like an SMF profile.
Erik
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-arc mailing list
[email protected]
