Fw: 2.10 Action Item #52

[Randy George <randyg@us.ibm.com>]

fyi...latest discussion on 2.10

Regards,
Randy George

Senior Technical Staff Member
Provisioning Architecture
Tivoli Software, IBM Software Group
Austin, TX  
(512) 838-0752     T/L 678-0752
----- Forwarded by Randy
George/Austin/IBM on 03/08/2006 08:32 PM -----

Randy George/Austin/IBM

03/06/2006 10:00 PM

To	"Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>
cc
Subject	RE: 2.10  Action Item #52Link

John,
  I don't think that any more of
the original needs to be there.  Your call.  If you want, take
a stab at how you want 2.10 to look including any 2.10.x additions.

Regards,
Randy George

Senior Technical Staff Member
Provisioning Architecture
Tivoli Software, IBM Software Group
Austin, TX  
(512) 838-0752     T/L 678-0752

"Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>

03/06/2006 04:27 PM

To	Randy George/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject	RE: 2.10  Action Item #52

Howdy... inline...

---

From: Randy George [mailto:randyg@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 3:01 PM
To: Patton, John H
Subject: RE: 2.10 Action Item #52


John, 
  I don't know if you saw my reply on Friday, but this rewording looses
the context of Decision Support.    I would suggest the following
(and I don't mind it being a header...another one of those that didn't
appear that way in the survey):

2.10
The SDD specification must support the definition of requirements that can be consumed by installation programs and provisioning applications to provide improved decision support capabilities for the lifecycle operations of a solution.

[Patton, John H]  I agree, mine loses a bit from the original, but considering there was no specific use case referenced for it, I didn't see any problem with changing the meaning.  Perhaps, if some of the original needs to be there, we can make a 2.10.x requirement for it?  Maybe move this into a 2.10.x requirement, as well and leave 2.10 as a header?

Thoughts?

-jp

Regards,
Randy George

Senior Technical Staff Member
Provisioning Architecture
Tivoli Software, IBM Software Group
Austin, TX  
(512) 838-0752     T/L 678-0752

"Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>

03/06/2006 01:27 PM

To	Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	Randy George/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Subject	RE: 2.10  Action Item #52

Hi Julia,
 
I worked with Randy off-line on this:
 
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=

Hi Randy,

Although the original felt more like a header description, I tried to turn it into a proper requirement. Here's what I have:

2.10
The SDD specification must support the definition of external requirements for deployment lifecycle operations for use with lifecycle management tooling.

Original:
2.10
Requirements to perform lifecycle management operations within various target environments may not be satisfied in the target’s current state but may be able to be satisfied with additional operations. For example, deployment of a set of Java components will be dependent on the existence of a Java runtime environment that is not included with the solution. If the SDD has the ability to information that will assist lifecycle management tools in accessing and installing these external requirements the end user value is increased.

=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=

cheers,
 
/john patton/

--
ca
Senior Software Engineer
Office: 630 505-6150
Cell: 847-224-9196
john.patton@ca.com

---

From: Julia McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 8:45 AM
To: Patton, John H
Cc: Randy George
Subject: 2.10 Action Item #52

Hi John,

Would you take a look at Randy's action item #52. In the meeting we said that you had already proposed a rewrite to 2.10, but I don't find it in your note with the many rewrites and can't find it anywhere else in the email threads either. Would you update the action item with either the rewritten text or a statement that there isn't a rewrite?

Thanks,

Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391