[occi-wg] Resource Types: Compute / Network / Storage

Alexis Richardson alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Sun Apr 19 14:45:00 CDT 2009


Please heed Simon's point:

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Simon Wardley
<simon.wardley at canonical.com> wrote:
>> That mostly works for me,
> That's good, but we need to encourage everyone to stick to the same
> terminology and not go about creating new stuff.

In discussions with folks over the last few days, I have noticed a
tendency to assume that OCCI is a premature exercise.  The argument
made is that creating an open (standard) API will either stifle
innovation or simply miss the point, because clouds and cloud APIs are
still evolving.  A concomitant claim is that an open API will
necessarily attempt to invent something new, or introduce complexity
where it is unwarranted.

To such people, I have been saying: At this stage, we are not trying
to invent anything.  IMO: our focus is on carefully representing
existing art, towards a progressively simpler model.  At this time,
this means codifying commonality across *existing* cloud APIs and
models, at the IaaS layer.  Our hope is that the result of this will
be something very easy to implement, with only a few verbs, and a
model that is obviously consistent with other standards.

The exact number of 'core' verbs is TBD - we don't yet agree on this -
but my *own* hope is that the core OCCI spec is surprisingly short in
pagelength if nothing else.


More information about the occi-wg mailing list