[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers
Gary Mazz
garymazzaferro at gmail.com
Mon Oct 19 10:19:04 CDT 2009
That is a good point, a better question would be how did it get into the
spec presented like it was the preferred method. Probably because there
is no single editor and anyone can change the documents anyway they feel
fit.
I don't think what Sam is working on is out of scope for OCCI, it was
unintended to support multiple interfaces. Sam seems to be running with
this one, driving OCCI to the lowest level of the HTTP protocols,
essentially creating a new technology, untried on multiple levels in the
internet infrastructure.
My issue with it is it was placed in the spec at the last second before
OGF 27, other implementations were remove in lieu of this one, it was
placed in the spec irrespective of a group consensus and SNIA, a
strategic partner, publicly announcing they would NOT support this
interface. However, this does not preclude the rest of this group to
continue with the original concept of OCCI information in HTTP entities
(content body).
For maintainability, this does force the document to take on a new
format of separating the implementations from reference model (we need
one first). Interface implementations should fall into adjunct
documents. This specification model has been successfully executed by
numerous standards bodies.
cheers,
Gary
Alexis Richardson wrote:
> Sam & group,
>
> I just saw this tweet: http://twitter.com/samj/statuses/4991958514
>
> You say that "HTTP has an out-of-band metadata channel in the form of
> headers. #occi's using Link: as a flexible, lightweight RDF
> alternative".
>
> I'm a bit confused here.... I thought this was still under discussion.
> What am I missing?
>
> alexis
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>
More information about the occi-wg
mailing list