[occi-wg] Scheduling parameters
andre at merzky.net
Tue Apr 14 11:02:21 CDT 2009
Hi Sam, Andrew,
as Alexander and Alexis in the other branch of this thread
(about scheduling), I just wanted to make sure that other
OGF groups and standards get considered, and involved, *when
appropriate*. So I'm happy to hear that people have
considered to use GLUE, and that GLUE MAY be usable as
alternative representation, etc.
Quoting [Sam Johnston] (Apr 14 2009):
> Further to Andrew's comments, I've thus far tried to avoid fixed
> schemas for anything, preferring tags and attributes and deferring a
> lot of that detail to supporting standards like OVF. I don't see a
> problem with using GLUE as an "alternate" representation and/or linking
> to it using <link>s or an extension.
> I hope that answers your question... basically I suggest that we
> [re]use it if we need to but not before.
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Edmonds, AndrewX
> <andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> wrote:
>> Hey Andre - we reviewed GLUE in SLA at SOI to see if it would meet our
>> needs for infrastructure provisioning but for the most our initial
>> feelings are that it wouldn't suit. Would you have any other
>> viewpoint on this?
Andrew, would you be able to feed back to the GLUE WG where
you considered the standarde to fall short of your
requirements? They might be interested to learn about that.
> But anyway: do you expect GLUE to play any role in respect to the
> specification of (VM) resource requirements?
I am actually not familiar enough with the topic to really
have an educated opinion. As an observer, it seems that the
OCCI will need to touch resource description at some point
or the other, to specify requirements to a VM for example,
and GLUE seems to aim at that type of use case. Not sure if
any from the GLUE people are listening here. If not, it
might be worthewhile to get their feedback at next OGF, by
going to their session...
Nothing is ever easy.
More information about the occi-wg