cddlm-wg

Download

cddlm-wg@lists.ogf.org

May 2005

5 participants
32 discussions

Notes from the meeting this morning
by Milojicic, Dejan S 04 May '05

04 May '05

Hi, Attendees: Sandro Rafaeli (HP Brazil), Vanish Talwar (HP), Jun Tatemura (NEC), and Dejan Milojicic (HP) We had a short meeting since we missed some of the key participants. We used the time to address a few CDL-related questions. We decided to postpone Component Model related discussion until next week. We also agreed to convey the comments to Stuart by email prior to the meeting. The good news is that Jun is implementing a reference implementation and he may be able to do some demo at the next GGF. If we are lucky enough, we may even be able to do a very limited interoperability, that is, send a minimal request between two different reference implementations. Dejan has reviewed the Foundation Document to cross-check if what we promised is consistent with where we are now. I have not found any significant inconsistencies and/or missing pieces between our current specs and what we have promised, aside of the engines (basic services module deployment APIs). However, I will pass the relevant pieces to the owners of the specs to double check if my and their understanding overlaps. Next meeting is in a week from now, 5/11, 6am PST, please make sure to attend and mark your calendars. We are grown ups and we should not rely on reminders sent. Thanks, Dejan.

1 0

FW: Notes from the meeting this morning (4/27/2005)
by Milojicic, Dejan S 04 May '05

04 May '05

Hi, Per the notes from last week, this is a reminder that we have a meeting this morning, in half an hour. Thanks, Dejan. -----Original Message----- From: Milojicic, Dejan S Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:51 AM To: 'cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org' Subject: Notes from the meeting this morning (4/27/2005) Hi, Here is a quick summary of the meeting this morning. Only Stuart and myself attended, but it was quite productive. 1. There will be a mandatory meeting next week. Can we please have all members of the team provide detailed feedback to Stuart on this spec. In the meanwhile (by next Monday), Stuart will provide additional version of the spec, BUT YOU SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR THIS ONE, the changes will be minimal and he does not depend on the feedback for these changes. Please comment on the previous version of the spec. 2. In the spirit of coming up with the reference implementations, we need to discuss what pieces of the work proposed in the original Foundation spec are not covered by existing specs. Engine interfaces come to mind. At the next meeting, I would like to revisit the commitments on who does what wrt reference implementations for the Chicago GGF. If we have additional resource, what would be most critical for the team to address: e.g. an independent reference implementation of an engine or a way to verify interoperability between existing (and which) reference implementations, etc. 3. Yesterday, Dejan presented the GGF CDDLM WG at the DMTF Utility WG. This informal presentation raised some interest, in particular the opportunities for declaratively expressing dependencies among deployment modules and its relationship to models. We agreed to explore possibility for the two groups meeting at Chicago. Once I have the most recent set of specs, I will pass them to the Utility WG (this means the newest component model and deployment APIs specs). Thanks, Dejan.

1 0