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

Gary Mazz garymazzaferro at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 11:10:54 CDT 2009


I do not believe we can set aside the OGF27 unapproved unilateral change 
to the document. It is a fundamental  problem in operation.

These are my suggestions:

1) Place the document in a format where each interface can have its own 
life cycle.
2) Create a template for adjunct documents
3) Limit check-in to the repository to two people and one backup.
4) Recruit an editor and a backup editor. This spec isn't that big.
5) Provide an incubator for emerging technologies and proposals for 
inclusion in the specification.
6) Form a public mailing list purposed for emerging technologies, 
proposal discussions and voting
7) Provide a proposal document number for each submitted document
8) Before the document can be considered for review, it must be in the 
adjunct documents template



Alexis Richardson wrote:
> Leaving aside the when and how in relation to OGF 27 specifically, we
> cannot claim that unilateral changes are supported by the group if
> they are not supported by the group.  I am very concerned about this.
> We of course don't want to ignore innovative proposals, but we need to
> build consensus around them before inclusion in the spec.
> Suggestions for a good way forward are solicited..
> alexis
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 fit.
>> 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.
>> cheers,
>> Gary
>> 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