[occi-wg] Networks: attributes and verbs

[Sam Johnston]

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> This is sounding awfully familiar, like DMTF's CIM model.
>

The key difference is that instead of trying to do everything for everyone
at one time we're starting with as little as possible and building on it
based on demonstrated demand and sensibleness of request. Richard has said
that 50% of his instances use pre-assigned DHCP leases - the idea makes a
lot of sense and costs us nothing to facilitate. If he asked us later we'd
only need add it to a registry.

Use AtomPub and people who want CIM can still have it by embedding and/or
linking<http://blogs.msdn.com/astoriateam/archive/2008/02/18/related-entries-and-feeds-links-and-link-expansion.aspx#8573352>to
it.


> How does this model handle channel bonding, cells, failover/failback,
> virtual circuits and traffic shaping ?
>

These are all important questions when turning theory into reality and we
have two options:

   1. *Don't care.* Make a tight, inextensible API and let the clients pay
   for the limitations with extra code and workarounds, probably in the form of
   having to implement multiple APIs (e.g. OCCI + task specific).
   2. *Play nice.* Be extensible by allowing foreign markup for
   specification of advanced features we don't care about. For example, in a
   request to create/update a network resource one could embed a descriptor
   standardised by SNIA.

This doesn't hurt interop (at least not for the things we actually care
about) because that information is still captured in the wrapper.

I hope it's becoming clearer why AtomPub (and I say AtomPub so as not to
confuse it with POX) is the best choice for this problem by a country mile.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090514/51e157c4/attachment.html