[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers

Gary Mazz garymazzaferro at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 10:19:04 CDT 2009

That is a good point, a better question would be how did it get into the 
spec presented like it was the preferred method. Probably because there 
is no single editor and anyone can change the documents anyway they feel 

I don't think what Sam is working on is out of scope for OCCI,  it was 
unintended to support multiple interfaces. Sam seems to be running with 
this one, driving OCCI to the lowest level of the HTTP protocols, 
essentially creating a new technology, untried on multiple levels in the 
internet infrastructure.

 My issue with it is it was placed in the spec at the last second before 
OGF 27,  other implementations were remove in lieu of this one, it was 
placed in the spec irrespective of a group consensus and SNIA, a 
strategic partner, publicly announcing they would NOT support this 
interface. However, this does not preclude the rest of this group to 
continue with the original concept of OCCI information in HTTP entities 
(content body). 

For maintainability, this does force the document to take on a new 
format of separating  the implementations from  reference model (we need 
one first).  Interface implementations should fall into adjunct 
documents. This specification model has been successfully executed by 
numerous standards bodies.



Alexis Richardson wrote:
> Sam & group,
> I just saw this tweet: http://twitter.com/samj/statuses/4991958514
> You say that "HTTP has an out-of-band metadata channel in the form of
> headers. #occi's using Link: as a flexible, lightweight RDF
> alternative".
> I'm a bit confused here.... I thought this was still under discussion.
>  What am I missing?
> alexis
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

More information about the occi-wg mailing list