proposal to bridge the semantic gap between Cloudsoft and Oracle proposals

[GILBERT PILZ <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>]

Attached is a sketch of a proposal that attempts to bridge the gap 
between the Cloudsoft and Oracle proposals for CAMP-4.

This proposal arose from Anish's questions re: "is there a semantic 
difference or are we just arguing syntax?" It seemed to me that there 
was a semantic difference and that it concerned the number and 
granularity of what I call "distinguished names". Ultimately we have to 
have some way of identifying the services and capabilities that are (a) 
offered by the platform and (b) required by the application. Because we 
don't want to get into "platform service taxonomy" business we use 
things like "com.example.foo:Baz" to identify these things. I call these 
distinguished names.

In the Oracle proposal each requirement was only allowed to list a 
single distinguished name. In the Cloudsoft proposal requirements are 
allowed to list multiple distinguished names. For reasons I go into in 
the document, I consider the Cloudsoft proposal to be a better match for 
the development environment around CAMP 1.1.

In addition to supporting multiple, fine-grained capabilities, this new 
proposal supports "content-less PDPs" (i.e. requests to create a 
framework in which to build an app) and some other things that I can 
point out when we get a chance to discuss this.

~ gp

Attachment: CAMP-4-compromise.docx
Description: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

Attachment: CAMP-4-compromise.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document