On behalf of OGF, per our discussions in Taiwan and the resulting Board meeting feedback, I have sent the following letter to Mark Carlson, VP of Alliances for DMTF and we are now awaiting their response. Thanks everyone for their feedback. Alan Begin forwarded message: From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu<mailto:alan.sill@ttu.edu>> Date: March 23, 2011 10:51:33 PM GMT+08:00 To: Mark Carlson <mark.carlson@oracle.com<mailto:mark.carlson@oracle.com>> Cc: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu<mailto:alan.sill@ttu.edu>>, Thijs Metsch <tmetsch@platform.com<mailto:tmetsch@platform.com>>, Winston Bumpus <wbumpus@vmware.com<mailto:wbumpus@vmware.com>>, "vp-alliances@dmtf.org<mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org>" <vp-alliances@dmtf.org<mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org>>, Steven Newhouse <steven.newhouse@egi.eu<mailto:steven.newhouse@egi.eu>>, David Snelling <David.Snelling@uk.fujitsu.com<mailto:David.Snelling@uk.fujitsu.com>>, David Wallom <david.wallom@oerc.ox.ac.uk<mailto:david.wallom@oerc.ox.ac.uk>>, Joel Replogle <replogle@ogf.org<mailto:replogle@ogf.org>> Subject: Re: OCCI and DMTF Mark, Thijs has offered the following summary of his suggested steps. These meet approval from other active leading members in the OCCI-WG, and an informal poll of our OGF formal leadership also indicates that these are acceptable steps. I include Thijs's message along with yours, as I think we are very close to being able to agree to a plan that could get the OGF Board's blessing and approval. In my mind, the immediate steps boil down to this: - Before submitting any OGF documents to DMTF through DMTF's formal submission process, we get your (DMTF's) approval to attach a rider to that process acknowledging that OGF's copyright and IP statements will remain in place and not be removed, even after such a submission. - The above submission can proceed independently and immediately upon such an agreement, since it is essentially completely compatible with OGF's existing terms of use for its formally published documents. It does not have to wait for further steps to be followed, although we would like to follow with others since we are interested in moving on with other related cooperative steps as described below. - We agree to pursue an update to our existing work register with the intent to pursue substantial cooperative work. The details can be worked out, but an outline is given by Thijs's message below, which has the right elements for joint work from our point of view. The work register and any associated agreement documents can be brought to the OGF Board for approval when all the participants are happy. - We are in the final stages of work on the three first OGF documents on OCCI, namely the Core, Infrastructure and HTTP Rendering documents. All will be released as Recommendation-track documents (P-RECs) when complete. The first two are in the final stages of internal Standards Council review after completion of editing following public comment, and should be out by the first few days of April at the latest. The HTTP Rendering document is in public comment until March 28, and its release timescale will be set by the public comments received and any resulting work that needs to be done. An ideal situation from my point of view, assuming that all of the above works, is for OGF to announce its upcoming partnership with DMTF (and possibly SNIA, since the cooperative agreement on CDMI with SNIA is much more current and could be brought up to date on the same or a similar timescale) on future versions of the relevant standards at or near the time that we announce the release of the OCCI Core and Infrastructure specifications, with a comment about the upcoming release of the HTTP Rendering document included. We can work the rest of the details in your and Thijs's messages below later if we can come to agreement on the basic points above. I have talked these points over with some members of the Board, including David Wallom as VP of Community and our Board chair Steven Newhouse, and believe that these are basically the points that we want. I can add as footnotes: - Full observer status for all OGF members in the Cloud Management Working Group in DMTF for the purpose of work on the OCCI-related steps, regardless of academic or industrial status, would be helpful. Voting status in DMTF for the CMWG for joint steps wold also be desirable (it is not essential, since joint steps by definition would need agreement from all parties, but it would be helpful to find a way for this to happen.) - Some sort of cooperative language in the work register regarding decisions on steps like the ones Thijs describes below would be helpful, although the exact steps can be subject to negotiation. One example method might be for all voting steps on OCCI to be taken in public session and subject to the usual OGF IP agreements, even if discussions leading to such votes have taken place previously in closed DMTF sessions. We need, in essence, to find methods to work together that respect the processes of each organization while leaving room for the internal work to take place that allows both organizations to move forward in full engagement with their communities. If we agree on the above in principle and have a process in place to describe work to be done crisply and quickly, then I think we have the essence of an agreement. The exact ownership of the specs in the future, and which organization will approach the ISO or other de jure standards organization, can be left for future discussion. As the OGF copyright explicitly allows for derivative works, i don't see this as a problem. Alan On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Thijs Metsch wrote: I would simply add the following bullet points to our existing work register under the OCCI paragraph: 1. OGF is willing to submit the OCCI documents to DMTF. OGF will keep and hold the Trademark and Copyright over OCCI. 2. DMTF allows participants from the OCCI working group to take part in the DMTF cloud related meetings. 3. DMTF will contribute any changes made to OCCI specification back to the OCCI working group for consideration. The OCCI working group will threat those changes as if they would come from an individual person inside of the group. 4. In case that just parts of the OCCI specification are taken or altered: 1-3 still apply These points have been discussed with DMTF and they are basically fine with it. On Mar 15, 2011, at 8:51 PM, Mark Carlson wrote: I think it is important that the industry see a continuous stream of innovation from the joint OGF/DMTF cloud standards effort. It should be possible to publish future versions using both copyright notices and a copyright license that works for all parties. I'd like to explore something like the following: 1) OGF (continues to) publish 1.x of OCCI on OGF site under OGF copyright 2) OGF submits OCCI 1.x to DMTF to coordinate with all the other submissions 3) DMTF publishes OCCI 2.0 with joint OGF/DMTF copyright (DMTF has not yet named their spec, so this is still possible) 4) OGF works on compatible extensions to OCCI 2.0 for the eScience/Grid community 5) OGF publishes extensions, then submits them into DMTF for work on OCCI 2.x 6) continue to work in this manner on future versions DMTF would also take OCCI 2.0 and above to ISO for de jure standardization Thoughts? -- mark On 3/15/11 3:16 AM, Sill, Alan wrote: Winston, Nice to talk with you again! I believe that the OGF board would agree to a proposal for submission of the soon-to-be-published OCCI specs if DMTF can guarantee the retention of the OGF copyright in future publications dependent on these documents. There may be other issues, but I believe they are minor. If this is a problem, OGF is prepared to revise its work register with DMTF with the goal to work towards a future revision of the OCCI specs as a joint product with DMTF, with terms to be worked out in the near future. I think there is great value in working together, and clear interest from many members of our community in doing so. I hope we will be able to talk about this in more detail in the near future. Alan On Mar 15, 2011, at 10:05 AM, "Thijs Metsch" < tmetsch@platform.com<mailto:tmetsch@platform.com><mailto:tmetsch@platform.com> wrote: Dear Winston, I would like to push the OCCI/DMTF collaboration to the next level. To speed up discussions I want to introduce you to Alan Sill. He is the VP of Standards for OGF and does in great job in driving adoption for OGF's standards. There are currently some minor copyright questions so I think best and fastest would be to get you guys connected. All the best, -Thijs -----Original Message----- From: Winston Bumpus [ <mailto:wbumpus@vmware.com>mailto:wbumpus@vmware.com ] Sent: Mon 07.03.2011 16:03 To: Thijs Metsch; andy@edmonds.be<mailto:andy@edmonds.be><mailto:andy@edmonds.be>; <mailto:alexis@rabbitmq.com> alexis@rabbitmq.com<mailto:alexis@rabbitmq.com><mailto:alexis@rabbitmq.com> Cc: <mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org> vp-alliances@dmtf.org<mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org><mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org> Subject: RE: OCCI and DMTF Thijs, Thanks. CMWG face-to-face this week in Portland, OR. Mark Carlson, should have reached out to you to see if you could call-in tomorrow am PST. Keep us posted on contact me if you or the board has any questions. Best wishes, Winston Bumpus President, DMTF <http://www.dmtf.org>www.dmtf.org<http://www.dmtf.org> Director of Standards Architecture VMware, Inc. 650.427.2787 | Voice 650.644.7968 | Mobile <http://www.VMware.com/standards>www.VMware.com/standards<http://www.VMware.com/standards> -----Original Message----- From: Thijs Metsch [ <mailto:tmetsch@platform.com>mailto:tmetsch@platform.com ] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 12:49 AM To: Winston Bumpus; andy@edmonds.be<mailto:andy@edmonds.be><mailto:andy@edmonds.be>; <mailto:alexis@rabbitmq.com> alexis@rabbitmq.com<mailto:alexis@rabbitmq.com><mailto:alexis@rabbitmq.com> Cc: <mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org> vp-alliances@dmtf.org<mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org><mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org> Subject: RE: OCCI and DMTF I have updated the OGF board and I guess we'll discuss these matters during todays OGF board meeting. Hope to give positiv feedback soon. Is that the latest OGF-DMTF work register? We might want to start updating in while the boards are still meeting. Cheers, -Thijs -----Original Message----- From: Winston Bumpus [ <mailto:wbumpus@vmware.com>mailto:wbumpus@vmware.com ] Sent: Mittwoch, 16. Februar 2011 17:28 To: Thijs Metsch; andy@edmonds.be<mailto:andy@edmonds.be><mailto:andy@edmonds.be>; 'alexis@rabbitmq.com<mailto:alexis@rabbitmq.com><mailto:alexis@rabbitmq.com> ' Cc: <mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org> vp-alliances@dmtf.org<mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org><mailto:vp-alliances@dmtf.org> Subject: OCCI and DMTF All, Thanks again for your time yesterday. I wanted to give you an update after further socialization within the DMTF CMWG. Today we discussed the possibility to collaborate with OGF on OCCI as a way forward. (there were about 30 representatives on the call) No one was opposed to this, but no one was willing to commit to this at this time. A new sub group (to be lead by Mark Carlson ) was formed and will go off an analyze how we move forward and folks agreed that OCCI should be part of that analysis. As Mark is also the DMTF VP of Alliances and also very familiar with OCCI it should be a good way to help this move forward. I have copied him on this email. I think a first step of submitting OCCI to the DMTF would help with this work. <http://dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP4011_1.1.0.p><http://dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP4011_1.1.0.p>http://dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP4011_1.1.0.p df The second step is to up date our current OGF work register. <http://dmtf.org/sites/default/files/OGF-DMTFWorkRegister1_2.pdf> <http://dmtf.org/sites/default/files/OGF-DMTFWorkRegister1_2.pdf> http://dmtf.org/sites/default/files/OGF-DMTFWorkRegister1_2.pdf Regards, Winston Bumpus President, DMTF www.dmtf.org<http://www.dmtf.org><http://www.dmtf.org> <<http://www.dmtf.org/><http://www.dmtf.org/>http://www.dmtf.org/ Director of Standards Architecture VMware, Inc. 650.427.2787 | Voice 650.644.7968 | Mobile www.VMware.com/standards<http://www.VMware.com/standards><http://www.VMware.com/standards> <<http://www.VMware.com/standards><http://www.VMware.com/standards>http://www.VMware.com/standards