James Carlson wrote:
Erik Nordmark wrote:
On 05/19/10 04:37 AM, James Carlson wrote:
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.
Sorry. I was on vacation last week and was unable to demand an apology.
This week I don't feel like I need one.
My interpretation of that statement was that even if profiles are a core
concept in NWAM, dependence on them would be unwise for another project.
The implication is that either they're too complex for the task at
hand, or too unstable, or perhaps that NWAM itself will be supplanted.
All of those seem possible, I don't know which is the case, but there's
at least a lack of clarity on how these things align.
I thought that my prior explanation:
"Just to be clear (since I've been informed that I wasn't). What I meant
was that the Install team wants configuration to be agnostic to them.
They don't want the install mechanism to understand the format of an
NWAM profile (unless it is an SMF-based profile ... which it isn't).
Install does not even want to rely on the existence of an ipadm(1M)
command to configure an IP interface. Install is asking for committed
SMF properties that can be used to configure a system. No such thing
exists today for configuring IP interfaces. True we (Solaris Networking)
could be proposing to provide an SMF profile and SMF service that
configured an NWAM profile. However, AI install is seen to be geared
more towards Enterprise users. And it is believed that those users would
not be interested in having NWAM enabled by default by install.
Sorry if that wasn't clear when I said that the "Install team would
prefer not to understand the details of an NWAM profile". What I meant
was that the Install team does not believe that the install mechanism
should have that knowlege."
made it pretty clear that none of what you suggest was the intent of my
comment?
Thus, I think the earlier questions from Darren and others asking why
NWAM isn't part of this answer are right on the mark.
I and the folks working on install don't believe that NWAM is yet
functionally complete enough to be the default service for our
Enterprise customers. And therefore, we chose to provide install with a
mechanism for configuring an initial physical:default configuration.
Does this mean that we (Solaris Networking) aren't working on doing away
with the separation between physical:default and physical:nwam? No. That
work is being planned. When completed, I believe that the interfaces
proposed by this case will be changed appropriately.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-arc mailing list
[email protected]
