sdd message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sdd] Groups - Action Item Modified: #0051 2.9.6
- From: Julia McCarthy <julia@us.ibm.com>
- To: Thomas Studwell <studwell@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 08:14:10 -0500
Unfortunately, this wording does not address my concern. Specifically, this final phrase still contains too broad a claim.
all implementations meeting a specific conformance level successfully install the same SDD package requiring that conformance level.
I believe that there will be other factors in a successful install that are outside the control of the SDD specification. For example, we've been discussing naming and versioning as being outside the scope of the SDD. If competing standards for naming and versioning emerge it is quite possible that implementations may function with one or the other standard but not both. There really is something very important to say with this requirement, but I think it needs to stop short of claiming that using SDD provides universal interoperability. Unless there are people in the group that believe SDD really will provide universal interoperability. Anyone?
Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391
Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Thomas Studwell/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
03/03/2006 05:57 PM
|
|
OASIS Solution Deployment Descriptor (SDD) TC member,
Mr Thomas Studwell has modified this action item.
Number: #0051
Description: 2.9.6
Owner: Mr Thomas Studwell
Status: Open
Due: 03 Mar 2006
Comments:
Ms. Julia McCarthy 2006-03-02 00:07 GMT
2.9.6 Julia disagrees because Debra suggests this contradicts 2.11.1. Tom will look at use case and make recommendation to either reword or delete. ACTION ITEM #0051
Ms. Julia McCarthy 2006-03-02 00:15 GMT
Here is the expanded text from the minutes:
2.9.6 Julia disagrees because she believes there will be factors outside the scope of the SDD that determine interoperability. Debra suggests this contradicts 2.11.1. Tom will look at the associated use case and make recommendation to either reword or delete. ACTION ITEM #0051
Mr Thomas Studwell 2006-03-03 22:57 GMT
Replaced section 2.9.6 with the following text:
2.9.6 The SDD specification, while defining various conformance levels (see requirement 2.11.1), must be sufficiently unambiguous so that all implementations meeting a specific conformance level successfully install the same SDD package requiring that conformance level.
View Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sdd/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1292
PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email application
may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste
the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
- OASIS Open Administration
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]