[occi-wg] Comments, Suggested Changes for Walkthrough

Wed Sep 30 06:22:58 CDT 2009

Hi all,

If Open Nebula have implemented OCCI then it would be great to see
details from them on the VM lifecyle management verbs.

* Start a VM with template T
* Start 2 VMs with template T
* Stop one or both of them

alexis

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Edmonds, AndrewX
<andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've gone through the walk through and have a list of comments and suggested
> changes. I will be continuing on through the spec with a similar intention
> of contributing comments and suggested changes.
>
> Thijs, if you like I can add these to the tracker unless you want to
> pre-process them?
>
> I do not suggest discussing any of these via the mailing list. That
> discussion can happen via the issue tracker.
>
> Andy
>
>
> * General
>    * Would be useful to introduce the notion of OCCI extensions in the walk
> through
>    * A page break should be inserted to separate the walkthrough and "OCCI
> Core Specification"
>    * Revise usage of brackets
>
> * Paragraph 4 "resource or type of resource"
>    * what's the difference here?
>
> * Paragraph 4 "and search"
>    * note that this is an extension and may not be supported in all
> implementations
>
> * Paragraph 5 Bracket usage in the sentence "Certain types of accesses..."
>    * would read better as: Certain types of accesses, such as a compute
> resource querying OCCI for introspection and configuration, may be possible
> anonymously in the case where the query has already been authenticated by
> interface and/or IP address.
>
> * Paragraph 6 "Should you be redirected by the API to a node, storage
> device, etc. (for example, to retrieve a large binary representation) then
> you should either be able to transparently authenticate or a signed URL
> should be provided."
>    * If the basic authentication is not cached then this transparent
> authentication will not happen. Is what I say a correct statement?
>
> * Paragraph 6 "(at least not yet!)"
>    * Remove this, not necessary.
>
> * Paragraph 6 "and while OCCI standardises a number of them for
> interoperability"
>    * We can only recommend other standards for use in OCCI not standardise
> them - that's the responsibility of the relevant standards body
>
> * Paragraph 6 List of representations
>    * I do not agree that a screenshot or access to console is an appropriate
> general entity representation like what OVF/OVA are. These items are more
> suitable as attributes in an entity representation (OVF/OVA/OCCI). Suggest
> removing or noting that they are lesser forms.
>
> * Paragraph 7 "The client indicates which representation(s) it desires by
> way of the URL"
>    * An example illustrating this might be useful e.g.
>    * To request a HTML rendering, if supported, of a compute node issue
> http://example.com/path/to/compute/resource/123-123-123.html
>    * The same might be for the content negotiation.
>
> * Paragraph 8 "In addition to the protocol itself,"
>    * Remove the protocol includes interaction semantics, syntax and data
> schemas.
>
> * Paragraph 8 "In addition to the protocol itself, OCCI defines a simple
> key/value based descriptor format for cloud infrastructure resources:".
>    * Reword to: "OCCI defines a simple key/value based descriptor format for
> cloud infrastructure resources. These infrastructure resources as defined by
> OCCI are:".
>
> * Paragraph 8 Formatting
>    * Embolden compute storage and network - these are core concepts to OCCI.
>
> * Paragraph 9 Comment
>    * If we say that it is trivial to translate and present an example that
> example should show the trivial translation. In this case we should add the
> XML and JSON examples.
>
> * Paragraph 10 Starting "The primary drawback is that" ending "or HTTP 410
> Gone otherwise)."
>    * Is this necessary here -  might be better moved out of the walkthrough
> to elsewhere or just removed.
>
> * Paragraph 10 Comment
>    * Bracket usage should be reviewed.
>
> * Paragraph 12 "UUIDs anyway"
>    * Remove "anyway".
>
> * Paragraph 12 "used instead (e.g. http://amazon.com/compute/ami-ef48af86)."
>    * Any significance using this URL - better we use something fictional
>
> * Paragraph 12 "can be safely allocated by any node"
>    * What's a "node"? A resource? A resource manager?
>
> * Section 2.3 Comment
>    * A brief introduction should be inserted here.
>
> * Paragraph 13 "POST it to"
>    * What is "it"? Explicate.
>
> * Paragraph 13 "as an HTML form"
>    * More correct to say "POST the attributes and values using the
> application/x-www-form-urlencoded format"
>
> * Paragraph 15 "to GET a template"
>    * New concept introduced with no explanation. Explain briefly (footnote?)
> or drop and move discussion elsewhere in doc.
>
> * Paragraph 15 "POST or PUT it back"
>    * There are semantic differences here that should be noted to the reader.
>
> * Paragraph 17 P18 Comment
>    * It would make more sense to inform the user how to get a list of
> supported renders per provider first and then tell how to request it. As it
> initially reads it appears that 2 calls are needed.
>
> * Paragraph 19 "There are two options:"
>    * Better phrased as "There are two concepts that are supported"
>
> * Paragraph 19 "such as searches"
>    * Change to "such as the collections returned from the search extension"
>
> * Paragraph 19 Pass-by-ref, pass-by-value
>    * This is more a metaphor -  might be worth explaining what is meant by
> these explicitly, otherwise the reader is left to interpret.
>
> * Paragraph 20 "Update"
>    * It says to PUT but I can also update via POST and be naughty.
>
> * Paragraph 22 Comment
>    * What about "Resource Child Collections".
>
> * Paragraph 22 Comment
>    * These are in effect extensions to the core and so should be noted as
> such.
>
> * Paragraph 24 "Requests"
>    * Just a comment - isn't this very RPC-like something that REST aims to
> avoid?
>
> * Paragraph 24 "Requests"
>    * A number of request types are mentioned but nowhere in the spec are
> they detailed.
>
>
> Andy Edmonds
> skype: andy.edmonds
> tweets: @dizz
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
> Registered Number: E902934
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>