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

Mon Oct 19 12:16:14 CDT 2009

Andre,

A face-to-face is a great idea. Although I'm spending a lot of time in
Zürich these days, Paris may be another good option as I know Alexis in
particular is fairly busy and there are flights from Dublin for Andy but
it's much of a muchness.

Sam

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:

> Quoting [Alexis Richardson] (Oct 19 2009):
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > Thanks.  That strikes me as a fairly complex process.
> >
> > Does anyone have any alternative suggestions?  We need a simple model
> > for reaching consensus here, that grows the community and adoption.
>
> Suggestion:
>
>  - agree on one editing backend (google docs/mercury) (like now)
>
>  - anybody can edit (after registration) (like now)
>
>  - before publication or presentation, require a one-week final
>    call on mailing list.  Only allow presentation as OCCI draft
>    if group agrees.  Otherwise, require label 'my suggestion for
>    OCCI draft' or similar.
>
> Note that OGF requires a final call on the list before submitting to
> the OGF editor anyway.  Submitted documents MUST represent group
> consensus, i.e. must represent the group majority.
>
> BTW: Voting on issues is explicitely encouraged: IMHO, you disuss
> issues to death otherwise ("running code and rough consensus").  So:
>
>  - discuss issue
>  - consider all alternatives / implementations
>  - if discussion stalls: vote on the issue
>  - *stick* *to* *the* *decision* ;-)
>  - only re-open the discussion IFF
>    - a new alternative emerges
>    - external or internal dependencies of the issue change
>    - implementation is impossible
>
>
> While I am on it, one more suggestion on procedures in OCCI: Other
> OGF groups have made tremendous progress in face-to-face meetings,
> such as during the OGF events, but also outside.  The OCCI group
> members don't seem to massively attend OGF events, really - probably
> because the group is much more diverse than other OGF groups (which
> is a good thing!).  Anyway, I think you guys should consider a
> meeting in person: lock a couple of key players in a room for a
> couple of days, and *decide* on things.
>
> I'd be happy to help to organize a F2F.  In fact, I checked with
> Thilo from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam (VU), and he'd be
> willing to host, anytime (*).
>
> So, please think about that, and let me know if that would help to
> settle the open technical issues in OCCI in the near future.
>
> Cheers, Andre.
>
> (*) It is not that VU is contributing to OCCI, but Amsterdam is very
> convenient to reach for most people, and cheap for Europeans, as
> EasyJet goes there from many locations.  Also, the VU is located
> about 15 minutes from the Airport (one train stop + 5 min walk).
> Also, VU is able to cover the cost for the venue.  Accomodation is
> affordable and nearby.  I'll rather be silent about Dutch food
> though... ;-)
>
>
>
> > alexis
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Alexis,
> > >
> > > I do not believe we can set aside the OGF27 unapproved unilateral
> change to
> > > the document. It is a fundamental  problem in operation.
> > >
> > > These are my suggestions:
> > >
> > > 1) Place the document in a format where each interface can have its own
> life
> > > cycle.
> > > 2) Create a template for adjunct documents
> > > 3) Limit check-in to the repository to two people and one backup.
> > > 4) Recruit an editor and a backup editor. This spec isn't that big.
> > > 5) Provide an incubator for emerging technologies and proposals for
> > > inclusion in the specification.
> > > 6) Form a public mailing list purposed for emerging technologies,
> proposal
> > > discussions and voting
> > > 7) Provide a proposal document number for each submitted document
> > > 8) Before the document can be considered for review, it must be in the
> > > adjunct documents template
> > >
> > > -gary
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Alexis Richardson wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > occi-wg mailing list
> > occi-wg at ogf.org
> > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>
>
> --
> Nothing is ever easy.
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20091019/0bd1fca1/attachment.html 