[occi-wg] Fwd: xml for occi-monitoring

Augusto Ciuffoletti augusto at di.unipi.it
Tue Nov 12 08:47:03 EST 2013


Hi all,

me and Jean had a conversation that happened to be "private", instead of
"public" as in our intentions. My fault.

So here it is...

Augusto

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jean Parpaillon <jean.parpaillon at free.fr>
Date: 2013/11/12
Subject: Re: [occi-wg] xml for occi-monitoring
To: Augusto Ciuffoletti <augusto at di.unipi.it>


Le 12/11/2013 12:36, Augusto Ciuffoletti a écrit :
> Ok, this is a roadmap item! Note that this discussion is now between me
> and you, though...

This is bad point. Would you mind transfer it to the ml ?

Jean

>
>
> 2013/11/12 Jean Parpaillon <jean.parpaillon at free.fr
> <mailto:jean.parpaillon at free.fr>>
>
>     Hi
>
>     Le 06/11/2013 10:33, Augusto Ciuffoletti a écrit :
>     > Replies are inline
>     >
>     > 2013/11/1 Jean Parpaillon <jean.parpaillon at free.fr
>     <mailto:jean.parpaillon at free.fr>
>     > <mailto:jean.parpaillon at free.fr <mailto:jean.parpaillon at free.fr>>>
>     >
>     >     Hi Augusto,
>     >     I had a look at your document and I have some comments:
>     >
>     >     1) as of RFC2606, example.com <http://example.com>
>     <http://example.com> and example.org <http://example.org>
>     >     <http://example.org> are reserved domain for
>     >     documentation purposes;
>     >
>     >
>     > touché
>     >
>     >
>     >     2/ While it's perfectly fine for me to let provider decide
>     metrics he
>     >     wants to expose, I think a minimum of interoperability requires
a
>     >     standardized list of them.
>     >
>     >     It would be a hard task to make the job again which was done
>     succesfully
>     >     over the years by SNMP community. I am thinking about a way to
>     translate
>     >     SNMP MIB variables into OCCI.
>     >     We may define MIBs as a mixin to associate to a sensor, for
>     instance:
>     >
>     >     <occi:mixin title="SNMP MIB"
>     >       scheme="http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/monitoring#" term="mib"
>     >     use="optional" >
>     >       <occi:applies scheme="http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/monitoring#"
>     >     term="sensor" />
>     >       <occi:attribute name="name" type="string" /><!-- eg IP-MIB -->
>     >       <occi:attribute name="id" type="string" /><!-- eg
>     .1.3.6.1.2.1.4 -->
>     >     </occi:mixin>
>     >
>     >     This is not complete, of course, but would rely on SNMP set of
>     metrics
>     >     for providing a good level of interoperability between
monitoring
>     >     providers.
>     >
>     >
>     > Yes, this is true. The point for me is to what extent a *single*
>     > standardization document has to detail.
>     >
>     > For instance, think to the RTP protocol: it is designed to transport
>     > multimedia, but there is no effort to define what is a frame. All
this
>     > is demanded to extensions, and there are a lot, and more are coming.
>     >
>     > I have a similar idea of OCCI: include a definition only of concepts
>     > (types) that are strictly needed to make it self contained. If I say
>     > that an attribute is a number, I must say what a number is. In my
>     case I
>     > have time attributes, and I have to define what time is (note, I use
>     > only strings and integers, since this seems to be the limited
toolset
>     > available).
>     >
>     > Extensions to the bare minimum should included in companion
documents:
>     > they can change over time, and the companion document may be
>     superseded,
>     > or deprecated. But the foundations are intact.
>     >
>     > So, in my mind it is ok to create a document "OCCI extension to
>     > represent networks as MIB", and to take advantage of other long
>     > elaborated results that aim at describing resources. But leaving
this
>     > distinct from a "foundational" document.
>     >
>
>     I agree with that. Monitoring and OCCI<->MIB spec must be separated.
But
>     as the latter one would widely depend on monitoring categories, I
would
>     tend to begin this spec ASAP to validate the monitoring spec.
>
>     > Bye!
>     >
>     > Augusto
>
>     Ciao
>     Jean
>
>     >
>     >     Best regards,
>     >     Jean
>     >
>     >     Le 18/10/2013 15:48, Augusto Ciuffoletti a écrit :
>     >     > Dear all,
>     >     >
>     >     > I have added to the xml-data-format branch an example of the
xml
>     >     that a
>     >     > provider (ACME) might add to specify the kind of monitoring
>     options it
>     >     > offers. I recall that one of the key features of the
>     approach is to
>     >     > leave the provider the freedom to define the available
>     building blocks
>     >     > for the monitoring services. The file
>     (occi-monitoring-acme.xml) is
>     >     > attached to this e.mail, together with an updated revision
>     of the
>     >     > occi-monitoring.xml.
>     >     >
>     >     > I'll be happy to read any comment on this, especially on the
>     >     > appropriateness of the namespaces I have chosen: this is a
>     >     critical part
>     >     > that cannot be tested with xmllint...
>     >     >
>     >     > Augusto
>     >     >
>     >     > PS: apologies if a real ACME provider exists...
>     >     >
>     >     > --
>     >     > Augusto Ciuffoletti
>     >     > Dipartimento di Informatica
>     >     > Università di Pisa
>     >     > 56100 - Pisa (Italy)
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > occi-wg mailing list
>     >     > occi-wg at ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg at ogf.org>
>     <mailto:occi-wg at ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg at ogf.org>>
>     >     > https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>     >     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     --
>     >     Jean Parpaillon
>     >     Open Source Consultant
>     >     Phone: +33 6 30 10 92 86 <tel:%2B33%206%2030%2010%2092%2086>
>     <tel:%2B33%206%2030%2010%2092%2086>
>     >     im: jean.parpaillon at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jean.parpaillon at gmail.com> <mailto:jean.parpaillon at gmail.com
>     <mailto:jean.parpaillon at gmail.com>>
>     >     skype: jean.parpaillon
>     >     linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanparpaillon/en
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     occi-wg mailing list
>     >     occi-wg at ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg at ogf.org>
>     <mailto:occi-wg at ogf.org <mailto:occi-wg at ogf.org>>
>     >     https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > --
>     > Augusto Ciuffoletti
>     > Dipartimento di Informatica
>     > Università di Pisa
>     > 56100 - Pisa (Italy)
>
>
>     --
>     Jean Parpaillon
>     Open Source Consultant
>     Phone: +33 6 30 10 92 86 <tel:%2B33%206%2030%2010%2092%2086>
>     im: jean.parpaillon at gmail.com <mailto:jean.parpaillon at gmail.com>
>     skype: jean.parpaillon
>     linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanparpaillon/en
>
>
>
>
> --
> Augusto Ciuffoletti
> Dipartimento di Informatica
> Università di Pisa
> 56100 - Pisa (Italy)


--
Jean Parpaillon
Open Source Consultant
Phone: +33 6 30 10 92 86
im: jean.parpaillon at gmail.com
skype: jean.parpaillon
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanparpaillon/en



-- 
Augusto Ciuffoletti
Dipartimento di Informatica
Università di Pisa
56100 - Pisa (Italy)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20131112/e91a6c31/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: jean_parpaillon.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 241 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20131112/e91a6c31/attachment-0001.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 271 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20131112/e91a6c31/attachment-0001.pgp>


More information about the occi-wg mailing list