Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tuesday, 10/24/2006 at 01:33 MST, "Schuh, Richard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there some reason that having a "NICDEF 500 TYPE QDIO LAN SYSTEM >VMTEST" in the directory does not authorize the user for that switch?
>4. Consider the LINK command in the directory. Without an ESM, it >confers permission. With an ESM, it does not. Do we continue that same >weird model? Or do we just bite the bullet and separate authorization >from configuration? Yes, I'd argue that you do, for reasons of usability. The current approach makes VM harder for non-VMers to adopt, and is thus bad for the platform. Besides, systems without ESMs are different beasts than systems with ESMs, so they operate differently. The added complexity of having to do a *second* step rather than putting things in the directory where &deity intended reminds me of the arcane kinds of things you have to do in some other OSes just to get stuff to work, and doesn't "feel" VMish to this gray-haired pismire. It's hard enough to get customers to update the directory properly without having to *also* have them add an arcane command somewhere else (like SYSTEM CONFIG!) that they're (correctly) afraid to mess with! ...phsiii
