The approach below sounds good to me. Any comments? If acceptable to all, I would like to say something extremely cautious along these lines tomorrow, without the details -- e.g., "the OCCi-WG and OGF plan to publish version 1 of the OCCI Core, Infrastructure and HTTP Rendering documents shortly, and are in conversations with DMTF with respect to extending their collaboration to allow joint work on refinements of these and related specifications shortly." Comments? Thanks, Alan Begin forwarded message:
From: David Snelling <david.snelling@uk.fujitsu.com> Date: March 14, 2011 5:24:53 PM GMT+01:00 To: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu> Cc: David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com> Subject: Re: DMTF - OGF cooperation on OCCI?
Alan,
The board did not have a lot of time to discuss it, and as we hadn't made a specific decision I didn't force the topic.
In general discussions, Winston in particular, seemed happy with the idea of a work register deal to accompany the formal submission. I also got back room indications that there would be other submissions along the line of complete solutions, so we would not be alone in this. I think that a strategy like this might work best:
1) Publish OCCi V1 ASAP.
2) Draft a work register with the DMTF (I have the AI on this). It should include an evaluation of OCCi as a way forward for the DMTF, but cannot bind the WG in any other way. It could outline an evaluation schedule and a target decision date for "go" or "no go" on further joint work. The also include "rules of engagement" for formal on going work, should the EG agree to head that way. This work register should name the outcome of such an engagement as OCCi V2 (aka V1-of-whatever-the-DMTF-might-name-an-initial-spec). [I like the sound of OCCi V1 better.
3) In parallel with (2), I believe we should work on an outline of OCCi V1.5, which recommends a path to modify/extend OCCi to meet the use cases outlined by the DMTF. It is this V1.5 of OCCi that we submit to DMTF. That way, we will always exclusively own V1 and can do our own V2 (and 1.5 is a submission version only). If we wanted to publish it as an OGF doc, I would make it an Informational Document - light weight process and easy to manage.
THoughts?
On 14 Mar 2011, at 10:45, Sill, Alan wrote:
Dave,
What news from DMTF?
Thanks, Alan
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Sill, Alan" <alan.sill@ttu.edu<mailto:alan.sill@ttu.edu>> Date: March 14, 2011 10:43:23 AM GMT To: Thijs Metsch <tmetsch@platform.com<mailto:tmetsch@platform.com>> Cc: Steven Newhouse <steven.newhouse@egi.eu<mailto:steven.newhouse@egi.eu>>, Joel Replogle <replogle@ogf.org<mailto:replogle@ogf.org>> Subject: Re: DMTF - OGF cooperation on OCCI?
Hi Thijs,
I'll let Joel and Steven fill you in on all of the details. I connected for most of the call, but had to leave for the airport shortly after the item was discussed and might have missed any final terminating discussion.
Briefly, the Board was warm to the idea of working together with DMTF on future developments based on OCCI, but feels as I do that the first step is publication of the current version to get the discussion on the table.
Our copyright and license terms are very generous, allowing any type of derivative work to be pursued as London as the copyright statement us preserved. It is not clear to me that submission according to the current procedures of DMTF would preserve that copyright, which is an explicit promise and commitment that we make to our community. Thus further discussion and (as you already suggested) a revision to the work register to produce an "OCCI 2" in cooperation and collaboration with DMTF might be in order and the best way to proceed towards a collaborative work product in the future.
We would need to have close discussions on an equal basis with the DMTF board or management to proceed, and my sense of the commitment in the OGF Board is that we are willing to have these discussions.
As I said, I had to leave the call shortly after the above discussion took place, so I will ask Steven and Joel to make and corrections or additions, and fill us in on any further items that I may gave missed.
Basically, I don't think we can sign away our copyright wholesale to another SDO for what Is essentially entirely a product of the open OGF community. But we are willing to work with DMTF on refining the products to encourage further adoption, improve the products and to create a suite that will be of high value to all components of the community.
Dave Snelling was at the DMTF meeting and appeared to be looking for opportunities to collaborate.
I will be at the Siena Cloudscape meeting, as will Steven, and suggest that we get together there to go over the details as well as to ask you to vet my Siena talk. I think I recall you saying that you will be there also - is that correct? If not, we should coordinate by Skype or email.
Talk with you soon, Alan
On Mar 14, 2011, at 8:23 AM, "Thijs Metsch" <<mailto:tmetsch@platform.com>tmetsch@platform.com<mailto:tmetsch@platform.com>> wrote:
Hi Alan,
What was the outcome of the board meeting? Can we submit to DMTF? The docs will pop up in the tracker very soon (definitely today!)
Just wondering, because DMTF started it's own group to create a RESTful protocol :-(
Cheers,
-Thijs
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Sill [<mailto:alan.sill@ttu.edu><mailto:alan.sill@ttu.edu>mailto:alan.sill@ttu.edu] Sent: Wed 09.03.2011 14:00 To: Thijs Metsch Cc: Alan Sill Subject: Re: DMTF - OGF cooperation on OCCI?
HI,
Close -- are you available for A chat now via Skype?
The Board will be informed, and will have a chance to comment, but the documents are in your hands as the OCCI-WG now and you can alter them as needed before sending in to the Standards Council (GFSG) for final review. that process takes a minimum of two weeks once you put in the documents.
The Board normally does not get involved in the track for standards documents approval, but may want to comment on the request of external submission. We don't really know how to respond to the request for formal submission to DMTF but may be willing to do it as a politeness and to encourage communication.
If extensive changes are anticipated to be needed to get compatibility between OGF and DMTF, we should probably publish now and incorporate any DMTF input you cannot get into this series without altering them substantially into a version 2 in the future. For various reasons, publishing now as the first step is probably what the Board would see as the best way forward.
Alan
On Mar 9, 2011, at 7:49 AM, Thijs Metsch wrote:
Just to let you know - Andy and I are finalizing the core and infrastructure documents and will submit them to the document track soon.
Currently for me all is clear - I hope we can submit the OCCI docs to DMTF as soon as the board is happy (Hopefully tomorrow). We should send out a note to Mark Carlson, Winston and Bob Marcus as soon as we know and let them know we submit it and when (hopefully this Thursday).
If there are any questions regarding the DMTF stuff feel free to ping me. I'm in concalls all tomorrow afternoon, but will be able to chat over skype, or dial-in quickly if needed.
Cheers,
-Thijs
______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
Take care:
Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited Hayes Park Central Hayes End Road Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE Reg. No. 4153469
+44-7590-293439 (Mobile)
______________________________________________________________________
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE Registered No. 4153469
This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of addressee(s) and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. Unauthorised use or copying for disclosure is strictly prohibited. The fact that this e-mail has been scanned by Trendmicro Interscan does not guarantee that it has not been intercepted or amended nor that it is virus-free.