[occi-wg] OCCI Core Errata Draft (update)

[Sill, Alan]

On Oct 2, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net>
 wrote:

>> What is common to put into "Status of this Document" at this
>> point in the OGF document process?
>> 
>> (I have to start doing my homework in OGF processes...)
> 
> :-)  GFD.152 (http://ogf.org/documents/GFD.152.pdf) is the one you
> want to look at, as author.

Yes.  A search on "status" within GFD.152 may be helpful.

> The status section is prescribed, but actually ill defined.  It is
> supposed to convey to the casual (OGF-acronym unaware) reader what
> this document represents (informational, specification, proposed spec
> etc, but also revision, possibly dependent specs, intended audience).

A clarification: the status of a general GFD can vary if it is a community practice or experimental document, but for recommendations-track documents there are only two status levels: proposed recommendation (GFD-R-P) or full grid recommendation (GFD-R).  You an use this section to indicate obsolescence or conversion to historical status.

The three main OCCI recommendations so far are "proposed recommendations".  The idea is that a proposed rec gains experience in implementation, and after a sufficient period of time and implementation experience, basically at least six months plus at least two interoperable independent implementations, plus documentation of accumulated experience (see below) can advance to a full recommendation status.  

So you have a lot less flexibility for free-form content in the "status" section of a recommendations-track document.  You shouldn't use this section tho put stuff in along the lines of "we're thinking about it".

The easiest way to document and compare implementations and gather relevant observations about its use is in an experience or community practice document.  The former is the vehicle often used by groups to make the case for advancement of a recommendation from proposed to full Rec status.  

So basically: Proposed Rec --> any needed errata --> multiple implementations + an experience document --> any needed revisions --> proposal to advance to a full recommendation.  Of course, errata can be applied at any time to the document, or a new document can be prepared that obsoletes the old one if substantial changes are needed that don't fit into the errata process or paradigm.  

Also see this note in GFD.152: 

"Small changes (as described in the Errata section below) may be applied from the Proposed Recommendation to the Grid Recommendation, but these should be used with caution, and changes that would impact interoperability should be avoided. If substantive changes are needed, a new Proposed Recommendation must be developed."

Hope this helps!

Alan