[occi-wg] Draft of OCCI 1.1 profile for VM templates/flavours

[Boris Parak]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Sill, Alan <alan.sill at ttu.edu> wrote:
> Any particular reason to specify exactly HTTP/1.1? I think that there are many advantages to using HTTP/2 for header compression, possibility to use multiplexed single-connection communications, binary representation, server push responses, etc. It’s backwards compatible so I think we need to allow for more generality.

Good point. There is no specific reason to use HTTP/1.1, aside from it
being referenced in OCCI 1.1 HTTP Rendering spec [1]. If using HTTP/2
doesn't break anything with regard to OCCI 1.1, we can use it.
Otherwise it will have to be included in an updated version of the
profile for OCCI 1.2. In any case, it would be an encouragement, not a
requirement (for practical reasons).

Michel, is this correct?

[1] https://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.185.pdf

>
> I started a discussion on tis on another thread, but am holding off asking for anything specific until we can try it out.
>
> Alan

Boris

>> On Mar 17, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Boris Parak <xparak at mail.muni.cz> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I have here, for your consideration, one of the first "formal" outputs
>> of EGI FedCloud's work with OCCI -- The OCCI Resource Template
>> Profile. We would very much like to hear your opinions, comments
>> and/or suggestions.
>>
>> After this (brief, hopefully) internal discussion phase, we would like
>> to push for a public comment phase as soon as possible.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Cheers, Boris
>> ---
>> CESNET / EGI FedCloud
>> <OCCI Resource template profile v6.docx><OCCI Resource template profile v6.pdf><OCCI Resource template profile v6.rtf>_______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>