Quoting [Sam Johnston] (May 15 2009):
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Randy Bias <[1]randyb@gogrid.com> wrote:
Yes. Extensions do not need to be interoperable. If it becomes clear that a given extension does need to be interoperable (e.g. widely adopted or lots of variations of the same theme) then thats a red flag indicating we need to evaluate it for inclusion in the core.
Exactly - and by using registries we should be able to avoid this in most cases anyway. Process goes like this: * Extensible spec released, implementors have at it * MacroHard wants to talk about RAID levels for their upcoming BigDisk * It's not in the spec so they complain to the registry maintainer (us?) * We think it's a good idea (or not) and add it to the appropriate registry (or not) * JuniperBerry see MacroHard's BigDisk eating their lunch and want to add a similar feature to their LittleDisk * It's already in the registry so nothing needs to be done - bingo, interoperability
An alternative, but somewhat more heavyweight/slower, and thus only ustified when there is vested interest from multiple sides: * Extensible spec released, implementors have at it * MacroHard wants to talk about RAID levels for their upcoming BigDisk * It's not in the spec so they propose an extension package to us (aka OCCI-WG) * we discuss it, think it's a good idea (or not), and produce a formal specification document * implementors hack at it, and interop if proven by multiple implementations * JuniperBerry see MacroHard's BigDisk eating their lunch and want to add a similar feature to their LittleDisk * it's already specified so nothing needs to be done - bingo, interoperability Andre. PS.: I am not sure if OGF would go into the space of maintaining registries, or such. OGF's business is to produce specification documents, and to host the infrastructure for doing so. But I am sure that, if a registry is the way to go, we'll find a host for that...
This doesn't work for complicated requirements, but for that we have the good work being done by other SSOs like DMTF - we can continue to focus on what interests us and users can do everything they need without breaking out into multiple protocols. Sam
On 5/14/09 12:42 PM, "Sam Johnston" <[2]samj@samj.net> wrote:
Whoever said extensions need to be interoperable? We can do what we can (e.g. registries) but beyond that extensions are just somewhere for people to put stuff, like trunk space. -- Nothing is ever easy.