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

gary mazzaferro garymazzaferro at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 17:52:30 CDT 2009

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:

> 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).

Agreed, consensus and discussion is need to  follow though on decisions. The
lack of discussion due the parties not engaging is not  considered

> 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.

Do we need some sort of certification to properly "appreciate" ideas ?

> 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.

Defining a set of data sequences or a new organization of key/value pairs
(as with occi) is a new DSL. It doesn't matter if its in a document or http


> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20091019/3c16251b/attachment.html 

More information about the occi-wg mailing list