Fw: [sdd] 2.3.1 - ATTENTION CHRISTINE AND JOSH

[Julia McCarthy <julia@us.ibm.com>]

I see I missed part of the intent of Christine's comment. Here's a revised proposal:

2.3.1 The SDD specification must support definition of information that describes the results of solution deployment sufficient to determine if resources are already installed.


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


----- Forwarded by Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM on 03/16/2006 04:23 PM -----

Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

03/16/2006 01:49 PM

To	sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	[sdd] 2.3.1 - ATTENTION CHRISTINE AND JOSH

There were two alternatives to 2.3.1. Christine and Josh disagreed with alternative two - the one most others agreed with. I have Christine's comments on this one so I'm going to propose an alternative that I think will satisfy her disagreement. I don't know Josh's reasons.

Here's Christine's comment: I think we should remove the "to allow" statements, and just say it should define changes to environment sufficient to identify whether the resource is already installed.

So, Christine and Josh, would this wording remove your objection:

2.3.1 The SDD specification must support definition of information that describes the results of solution deployment sufficient to determine if the deployment lifecycle operation is needed (if the current hosting environment already matches the desired results).

If anyone else objects to this new wording, please respond. Otherwise your agreement will be assumed.