[occi-wg] Simple JSON rendering for OCCI

[Sam Johnston]

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:

>
> An alternative, but somewhat more heavyweight/slower, and
> thus only ustified when there is vested interest from
> multiple sides:
>
>  * 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 propose an extension
>    package to us (aka OCCI-WG)
>  * we discuss it, think it's a good idea (or not), and
>    produce a formal specification document
>  * implementors hack at it, and interop if proven by
>    multiple implementations
>  * JuniperBerry see MacroHard's BigDisk eating their lunch and want to
>     add a similar feature to their LittleDisk
>   * it's already specified so nothing needs to be done - bingo,
>    interoperability
>

Yes, we would need both - registries primarily for change management of
attributes, states, etc. and full-blown extensions for more advanced topics
like adding new resource types/styles (e.g. load balancers).

I'd suggest breaking up the workload as follows:

   - Adopt AtomPub (+search, caching, etc.) as OCCI Core - *lots* of hard
   work already done (the alternative will almost certainly involve another OGF
   cycle, pushing the final delivery out to OGF 28 which is yet to be scheduled
   in 2010)
   - Specify compute, storage and network resources as separate extensions
   (probably in that order)
   - Specify state control as an extension <- at this point we have our
   implementable draft
   - Specify billing, performance monitoring, etc. as extensions
   - Flesh out over time based on demand for features

One huge advantage of this approach is that we don't have to wait until the
end before we start implementations - people can start right now (as I
have).


> PS.: I am not sure if OGF would go into the space of
> maintaining registries, or such.  OGF's business is to
> produce specification documents, and to host the
> infrastructure for doing so.  But I am sure that, if a
> registry is the way to go, we'll find a host for that...
>

One non-technical point to consider when it comes to things like registries
is that using neutral ground like IANA make the standard *far* more likely
to be adopted by other SSOs.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090515/c30fc6fd/attachment.html