PSARC doesn't work!! Re: Intel AMT [PSARC/2007/601 Self Review]

[James Carlson]

Vincent Wang writes:
> PSARC doesn't work!
> 
> I'm deeply worried because none of the people who raised questions spent 
> more than an hour even googling the text about the technology.
> 
> Do you guys respect the hard work of the excellent engineers in other 
> companies who invented AMT, and the billions of dollars spent developing 
> the technology?
> 
> I'm especially worried because these people include _James D Carlson_ 
> who has been in Sun for such a long time!

It's the project team's responsibility to submit complete materials
for review.  It's not the ARC member's responsibility to go off and
figure out what (if anything) a project team might be trying to do.

> Do you know that this conversation can be easily searched on google? 

Of course.

> Whatever you say, you represent the image of Sun's engineers!

I'm well aware.

> People may ask, why is he asking these guys to review this stuff for an 
> approval? What?
> 
> Tell me why. And be responsible.

As with any review -- design, code, or otherwise -- the point of an
architectural review is to make sure that what's being done by the
project team is consistent with good practices.  In this case, that
means that the project conforms to expected norms (secure by default,
least privilege, and SMF, among others) and is something that can
potentially be used by future projects as a building block.

Your case sponsor is supposed to help you with this.  He's supposed to
make sure that your materials are complete and that he understands
what the project is doing.  I don't think that happened in this
instance.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive        71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677