On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:59:56AM -0500, Sebastien Roy wrote:
> 4.  Opinion
> 

No opinion?

> 5.  Futures
> 
> A substantial amount of the discussion  centered  on  issues
> that the project team considers to be items for future work,
> including servers, automated  installers,  VLANs,  and  NTP.
> The  project team explained that there are still more phases
> coming,  and  that  this  one,  like  the  previous   phase,
> addresses  lower-end  users,  so  these  concerns are out of
> scope for this project.  The ARC members  agreed  with  this
> explanation.
> 
> An important distinction to note is that the Nevada  instal-
> lation   (including  Jumpstart)  does  not  enable  NWAM  by
> default.  The only installer that enables it by  default  is
> the new OpenSolaris Caiman.

Er, "Nevada installation", "JumpStart"?  Isn't Nevada (SXCE/SXDE and
builds between releases thereof) dead?

There's only the OpenSolaris installer and AI to consider.  Presumably
AI does not enable NWAM by default, while the OpenSolaris installer
does.

> 5.1.  VNIC Problems
> 
> An ARC member noted that with the  existing  NWAM  Phase  0,
> VNICs  are not brought online at boot time.  While the users
> for which this project is designed may not have a  need  for
> these  more advanced features, it would be desirable to have
> the features not be in direct conflict with each other.  The
> discussion  of  this  issue  led  to  the  technical  change
> advised, described below.

Not the right place, I know, but ISTM that there are two kinds of VNICs
as far as NWAM should be concerned: those that should always be brought
online (and be usable via NWAM as any other interface), and those that
should be brought online only for specific location profiles.  (A third
category: VNICs that should only be manually brought online and which
should be ignored by NWAM at all times.)

> 8.2.  Appendix B: Technical Changes Advised
> 
>      1.   NWAM should be able to  coexist  with  VNICs.   It
>           need  not  configure  them  in  this  phase of the
>           project, but it should not prevent them from being
>           used on the system by manual configuration.

The first part of this TCA sounds rather ambiguous.  What does "coexist"
imply in this context?

The second part of this TCA sounds like a TCR to me -- it should be a
TCR, at any rate.  That is: nothing in this or any phase of NWAM should
"prevent [VNICs] from being used on the system by manual configuration",
but it should be OK for this phase of NWAM to do nothing more about
VNICs.  The TCA should cover the desire that NWAM actually do more about
VNICs than merely ignore them.  No?

Nico
-- 

Reply via email to