[glue-wg] Platform_t

[JP Navarro]

If all we're publishing are the values that someone in the GLUE community has used, and which the GLUE WG has not made any attempt to reconcile for consistency, duplication, formatting, community meaningful names (not misleading), etc. then it would not make sense to review them. In that case our procedure should be anyone can add values and we will not question them.

However, I think we're aiming for a slightly higher bar, although we all agree that reviewing every single value would not be productive. My suggestion is that our INITIAL release of enumerations for a specific type be reviewed by the group.   Florido, or whomever is proposing the initial DRAFT set, should write-up brief guidelines we're trying to follow for that type. After the group agrees on the guidelines and on change to the initial set we release them.  Any new enumerations that are submitted and consistent with the guidelines are simply added without discussion.

What do other think?

JP

On Jun 14, 2013, at 6:11 AM, stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk wrote:

> glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>> Behalf Of JP Navarro said:
>> I think we should discuss other Enumerations and get consensus before we
>> start publishing them, or they should be labeled as DRAFT.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what you want to label as DRAFT - the enumerated values themselves, the publication method or the procedures? For the actual values I don't think calling them drafts would make much sense. On one side they are constantly growing so will always be drafts. On the other hand, for values defined in the schema doc or which are already in use they can't just be changed arbitrarily, we would need a good reason and a deprecation procedure - in practice there could be a long period with both old and new values being published so it isn't something to do lightly.
> 
> Stephen
> 
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.