[occi-wg] Comments, Suggested Changes for Walkthrough

Alexis Richardson alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 11:30:18 CDT 2009 

Excellent and thank-you.

This looks like a great step forward for OCCI.  Well done!


On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Tino Vazquez <tinova at fdi.ucm.es> wrote:
> No, just the URL identifier is mandatory, in fact the other is
> redundant and no needed at all.
>
> --
> Constantino Vázquez, Grid Technology Engineer/Researcher:
> http://www.dsa-research.org/tinova
> DSA Research Group: http://dsa-research.org
> Globus GridWay Metascheduler: http://www.GridWay.org
> OpenNebula Virtual Infrastructure Engine: http://www.OpenNebula.org
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Alexis Richardson
> <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks.  One last question:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Tino Vazquez <tinova at fdi.ucm.es> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> We just manage running instances representations. We distinguish them
>>> using the ID tag in the XML document, and also, as you say, using the
>>> URL.
>>
>> Must both identifiers be the same and if then should that be mandatory
>> for all OCCI impls?
>>
>>
>>
>>> Please come back to us if this doesn't make sense to you.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> -Tino
>>>
>>> --
>>> Constantino Vázquez, Grid Technology Engineer/Researcher:
>>> http://www.dsa-research.org/tinova
>>> DSA Research Group: http://dsa-research.org
>>> Globus GridWay Metascheduler: http://www.GridWay.org
>>> OpenNebula Virtual Infrastructure Engine: http://www.OpenNebula.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Alexis Richardson
>>> <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Tino Vazquez <tinova at fdi.ucm.es> wrote:
>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>
>>>>> OpenNebula OCCI implementation does not uses management verbs. In
>>>>> turn, it uses the VM representation to update the state via a PUT HTTP
>>>>> verb. So
>>>>>
>>>>> * Start a VM with template T: Is POSTing a COMPUTE representation to
>>>>> the COMPUTE POOL
>>>>> * Start 2 VMs with template T: Is POSTing it twice
>>>>> * Stop one or both of them: Is getting the representation and change
>>>>> it to reflect the STOP state and PUTting them back to the COMPUTE
>>>>> resource
>>>>
>>>> Great!  Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> How do you distinguish between the representation and the running
>>>> instance?  Eg, if you start 2 VMs with one representation then are
>>>> they distinguished?  And, if they are, then are they distinguished
>>>> within the representation, eg <ID>123AF</ID>, or by the URL of the
>>>> representation, eg http://www.opennebula.org/compute/123AF
>>>>
>>>> alexis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Tino
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Constantino Vázquez, Grid Technology Engineer/Researcher:
>>>>> http://www.dsa-research.org/tinova
>>>>> DSA Research Group: http://dsa-research.org
>>>>> Globus GridWay Metascheduler: http://www.GridWay.org
>>>>> OpenNebula Virtual Infrastructure Engine: http://www.OpenNebula.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Alexis Richardson
>>>>> <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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