Sam,

True, we are not locking down any vendor to any specific implementation. At this date, OCCI  does not have a attribute or operations defined for life cycle management. OCCI does have to operate with provider implementations that do support life cycles. We need to at least recognize those most basic life cycles in terms of permissible API operations. For example, a provider may not permit the deletion of an "active" VM. We will have recognize the most rudimentary life cycle states to offer consistent error or exception codes for operations in cases where providers do support life cycles. 

If you feel that an  "occi life cycle" recommendation is needed at this point, we should discuss it. For now, I would prefer to report provider life cycle states mapped to occi enumerated state "values".

-gary


On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
Gary,

While I still don't think we need nor want to lock down a state diagram, if we were to recommend one this looks fairly sensible. Reality is that if we mandate anything it won't mesh with all implementations so we'll exclude people unnecessarily.

Sam

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

I put together a simplified version of the OCCI life cycle (state) diagram.   I'll be using this as an overview and for discussion purposes. I'll provide a description in a couple of days.


-gary





_______________________________________________
occi-wg mailing list
occi-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg