On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> wrote:

An alternative, but somewhat more heavyweight/slower, and
thus only ustified when there is vested interest from
multiple sides:

 * Extensible spec released, implementors have at it
 * MacroHard wants to talk about RAID levels for their upcoming
   BigDisk
 * It's not in the spec so they propose an extension
   package to us (aka OCCI-WG)
 * we discuss it, think it's a good idea (or not), and
   produce a formal specification document
 * implementors hack at it, and interop if proven by
   multiple implementations
 * JuniperBerry see MacroHard's BigDisk eating their lunch and want to
   add a similar feature to their LittleDisk
 * it's already specified so nothing needs to be done - bingo,
   interoperability

Yes, we would need both - registries primarily for change management of attributes, states, etc. and full-blown extensions for more advanced topics like adding new resource types/styles (e.g. load balancers).

I'd suggest breaking up the workload as follows:
One huge advantage of this approach is that we don't have to wait until the end before we start implementations - people can start right now (as I have).
 
PS.: I am not sure if OGF would go into the space of
maintaining registries, or such.  OGF's business is to
produce specification documents, and to host the
infrastructure for doing so.  But I am sure that, if a
registry is the way to go, we'll find a host for that...

One non-technical point to consider when it comes to things like registries is that using neutral ground like IANA make the standard far more likely to be adopted by other SSOs.

Sam