[occi-wg] Simple JSON rendering for OCCI

[Sam Johnston]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Randy Bias <randyb at gogrid.com> wrote:

>  Yes.  Extensions do not need to be interoperable.  If it becomes clear
> that a given extension *does* need to be interoperable (e.g. widely
> adopted or lots of variations of the same theme) then that’s a red flag
> indicating we need to evaluate it for inclusion in the core.
>

Exactly - and by using registries we should be able to avoid this in most
cases anyway. Process goes like this:

   - Extensible spec released, implementors have at it
   - MacroHard wants to talk about RAID levels for their upcoming BigDisk™
   - It's not in the spec so they complain to the registry maintainer (us?)
   - We think it's a good idea (or not) and add it to the appropriate
   registry (or not)
   - JuniperBerry see MacroHard's BigDisk™ eating their lunch and want to
   add a similar feature to their LittleDisk™
   - It's already in the registry so nothing needs to be done - bingo,
   interoperability

This doesn't work for complicated requirements, but for that we have the
good work being done by other SSOs like DMTF - we can continue to focus on
what interests us and users can do everything they need without breaking out
into multiple protocols.

Sam

On 5/14/09 12:42 PM, "Sam Johnston" <samj at samj.net> wrote:
>
> Whoever said extensions need to be interoperable? We can do what we can
> (e.g. registries) but beyond that extensions are just somewhere for people
> to put stuff, like trunk space.
>
>
>
> --
> Randy Bias, VP Technology Strategy, GoGrid
> randyb at gogrid.com, (415) 939-8507 [mobile]
> BLOG: http://neotactics.com/blog, TWITTER: twitter.com/randybias
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090515/ac38bd8a/attachment.html