[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers
samj at samj.net
Mon Oct 19 16:46:47 CDT 2009
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Alexis Richardson <
alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Alexis Richardson
> > Trying to build a standard from scratch is like trying to work out what
> > colour to paint the bikeshed, as evidenced by discussions like this.
> Yes, when we formed OCCI we agreed to minimise invention of new
> technology - obviously this is a 'judgement call'. The chairs should
> apply this principle when facilitating consensus.
I think it's best you stick to calling the consensus based on discussions,
which hopefully you will also be contributing to (there's no harm in wearing
both hats if you keep the roles separate).
Such a "test" is highly subjective and easily [ab]used to short circuit
consensus and/or suppress ideas you don't personally understand or
appreciate. Case in point is the unjustified claim that using HTTP headers
for metadata is somehow experimental "new technology" when it was explicitly
defined for this purpose by
RFC2068<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068#section-7.1>over a decade
ago and used extensively since:
Entity-header fields define optional metainformation about the entity-body
> or, if no body is present, about the resource identified by the request.
Conversely the creation of a domain-specific language for each and every
resource that we need to represent (at least 3 for infrastructure, 5-10+ for
platforms and an infinite number for applications) and somehow keeping that
in sync with authorative "native" representations like OVF is *far* more
experimental, error prone and ultimately likely to fail.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the occi-wg