Hi Jack -
I don't think you should defer the tool as an RFE. I think the project
should be done in conjunction with the tool. Other than that, I think
this is much easier to understand.
ginnie
On 06/22/09 17:04, Jack Schwartz wrote:
> Hi Ethan and Ginnie.
>
> Gentle reminder: if you have any comments/answers on this email please
> make them before tomorrow.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Jack
>
> Jack Schwartz wrote:
>> Hi everyone.
>>
>> Please find the latest version of the Manifest Inter-File
>> Organization functional spec. (It is attached as I had trouble
>> uploading the pdf to the website.)
>>
>> It is the result of our meeting last week. There is now one manifest
>> of three sections.
>>
>> There are a few issues still to be worked out or questions I have. I
>> would appreciate feedback by Monday 6/22 COB.
>>
>> 1) Question: Can someone please clarify for me how systems will be
>> given a unique hostname during an install without derived manifest
>> project affecting the enhanced SMF profiles? Are we relying on DHCP,
>> or is there some other mechanism?
>>
>> 2) Section 5.2 paragraph 2 talks about a potential issue of an XML
>> authoring tool rejecting a single file containing a section with a
>> DTD header in the middle of the document. Are there other issues or
>> aspects of this issue which need to be brought up?
>>
>> 3) I removed the section on criteria used exclusively by the derived
>> manifests project because I couldn't find anything about in the
>> derived manifests functional spec. The criteria I am talking about
>> were to help in the derivation process (e.g. use derivation X if a
>> system has criteria x and use derivation Y for systems with criteria
>> y), as opposed to selection of which manifest to use.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jack
>>
>> P.S. I've cc'ed Ethan and Ginnie who I think are the most
>> knowledgable people to answer questions 1 and 3.
>>
>
--
Ginnie
