Hi Ralf, On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Ralf Nyren <ralf@nyren.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:48:54 +0200, Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
Hi Ralf, all,
I had a quick look over the document. It looks good to me in general, nice job!
Hi Andre, thanks for taking the time to read the document!
Two small comments:
- 'Errata Draft GFD-P-R.183'
This is not an errata document, but a new GFD document (no matter if it keeps the number or not). The document should thus be clearly marked as a new revision of the OCCI Core specification, which *contains* Errata.
Ok. Let me know what should be there and I will update the draft document.
Updating the 'status' section and removing the 'errata' part from the number should solve this.
The purpose of "Errata Draft" at this stage was just to inform that this is not a final published document. It is still a draft. Maybe I should have removed the document number altogether.
A sentence in that respect in the 'Status of this Document' section would be good.
Good point. What is common to put into "Status of this Document" at this point in the OGF document process?
(I have to start doing my homework in OGF processes...)
:-) GFD.152 (http://ogf.org/documents/GFD.152.pdf) is the one you want to look at, as author. The status section is prescribed, but actually ill defined. It is supposed to convey to the casual (OGF-acronym unaware) reader what this document represents (informational, specification, proposed spec etc, but also revision, possibly dependent specs, intended audience).
A statement about how that revision / how thee errata influence depending specs (OCCI infrastructure, OCCI renderings) would also be useful and clarifying.
np, I can add that. Where do you want it in the document?
At the end of the intro, where relation to other docs is already placed?
- errata section 6. - <pedantic> please add a page break before that section </pedantic>
Sure, just didn't bother with LaTeX beautification last night. Will fix.
:-)
- for each item, it would be great if you could add a short statement if that item has any consequences for implementors of the earlier revision, in particular for backward compatibility.
Will do.
Btw, is Section 6 a good location for the Errata summary? Or should it go further down, e.g. after glossary?
section 6 is fine IMHO, an appendix would also work, and is possibly more common, to leave the spec text itself 'cleaner'. Thanks, Andre.
regards, Ralf
Hi,
I have updated the OCCI Core document to include the feedback on the last errata draft.
Please find a PDF attached and refer to the Git commit log [1] for details.
The document now contains an Errata Summary and is (in my view) close to its final state. If you have any pending corrections for OCCI Core now is
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Ralf Nyren <ralf@nyren.net> wrote: the
time to speak up!
Very important to read and provide feedback on the Core errata update and the JSON Rendering spec.
regards, Ralf
[1]
http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:54:48 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian <florian.feldhaus@gwdg.de> wrote:
Hi,
I just spoke with Thijs and we would suggest to skip the TelCo today
encourage everyone to join the TelCo next week 18:00 CET. We would
and like
to discuss all remaining issues with the OCCI Core and OCCI JSON documents and then prepare them for submission to the OGF review process.
It is very important, that everyone checks the documents again. The latest versions of the documents can be found here:
http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/core-errata/cha...
http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/occi-wg/repository/revisions/json/changes/js...
Cheers, Florian
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
-- Nothing is really difficult...