Hi Augusto,
I had a look at your document and I have some comments:
1/ as of RFC2606, example.com and example.org are reserved domain for
documentation purposes;
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:
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@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
-- Jean Parpaillon Open Source Consultant Phone: +33 6 30 10 92 86 im: jean.parpaillon@gmail.com skype: jean.parpaillon linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanparpaillon/en