[occi-wg] confusion about status of link / headers

[Alexis Richardson]

Leaving aside the when and how in relation to OGF 27 specifically, we
cannot claim that unilateral changes are supported by the group if
they are not supported by the group.  I am very concerned about this.
We of course don't want to ignore innovative proposals, but we need to
build consensus around them before inclusion in the spec.

Suggestions for a good way forward are solicited..

alexis



On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>