[occi-wg] moving forward

[Gary Mazz]

Alexis Richardson wrote:
> Sam,
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote
>   
>> I guess I missed the memo where running into the usual contention over
>> programmers' preferred formats means we've failed and need to start from
>> scratch.
>>     
>
> My proposal is not that we start from scratch, it is that we are
> missing a chunk of definitions for how to interact with the cloud.
> Taking the Sun/GG API and, as you put it, picking their eyes out
> (eek!) is a good way to fill that gap.
>
> As I say, I am looking for GROUP feedback here please.
>   

I'll kick in my 2cents.

The behavioral models, how we will interact with the various cloud 
implementations is not a trivial task. It will require a "do diligence" 
phase for each implementation. I don't think its feasible for this group 
in capacity or current levels of sponsorship can achieve that goal in 
any reasonable amount of time.

I would suggest that we engage each of the implementation teams. At a 
minimum, supply them with a list of questions and issues we feel is 
relevant to provide interoperability. I would like to have them help 
build the attribute matrix. If they don't participate, we do what we can 
and get a minimal set of features.

We could also consult with the operators and end users. Interview them, 
find out the specific behavioral/interaction concerns for 
interoperability. I fully expect each will have widely varying 
requirements and expectations. Since they don't have it today, it may be 
a wish list. We can at least assess the commonalities and classify the 
users.

-g
>
>   
>> I also missed the part where adopting one vendor's WiP API over any
>> other is somehow fair to other vendors,
>>     
>
> The word "adopting" does not mean the same as "taking as a starting
> point" which is what was used.  It is precisely BECAUSE it is WiP that
> it is useful for our purposes which include "taking what has been done
> and making it better and common".
>
> I would like to hear what the other vendors think *from them*.
>
>
>   
I'm not happy with the idea (ego ?), but there needs to be a hard 
concerted effort to get a wip document completed.
The matrix on the wiki is a good starting point for an API. The life 
cycle portion is also a good starting point to discover behavioral gaps. 
  A challenge with this strategy is our expectations may be too high for 
the outcome of the review process. Reviewers commonly critique what is 
"in" the doc, not what is missing from the doc.  We will need to submit 
some structured questions with each api to solicit responses pertaining 
to administration, management and diagnostic support.  Thats all i can 
think of on minimal sleep.


-g
>
>   
>> That said, we're working on problems with subtle but important differences -
>> Tim needed to expose the specific functionality of Sun's technology while we
>> need to be more generic, flexible and extensible. We'll pick the eyes out
>> (e.g. take the best parts) of Sun's and GoGrid's and ElasticHosts' and
>> whatever other applicable APIs we can find but if the perfect API existed
>> already none of us would be here.
>>     
>
> Please DO just that.  Make those APIs better.  Tell us what needs to
> be done to them to make them better.  Explain the subtle but important
> differences with reference to the work on the wiki to illustrate
> specific requirements.
>
> alexis
>   

This is a little concerning. We need to first establish the attributes 
for each of the apis and aggregate/synthesize an api. Place that 
document in the hands of the reviewers. gauge the 2Ms (too much, too 
little).

-gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   
>> Sam
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>