RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.2.1.1

[Christine Draper <cdraper@us.ibm.com>]

Debra,

OK, I will withdraw my issue on "prioritization" re 2.1.2.1.1, on the understanding it is "advice" not mandated decision logic.

Regards,
Christine

Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX 78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482
"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>

"Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>

03/23/2006 12:48 PM

To	Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.2.1.1

Hi Christine,

Our difference here may just be the interpretation of prioritization vs. preference. I didn’t envision a situation where a prioritization was not overrideable by the install operator – so it sounds like we are in agreement. Preference is a word I generally associate with the end user, rather than the author – I think that use of the word here is likely to be misunderstood. The user specifies a preference, the author a priority.

I also disagree strongly that vendor preferences should be coded in install program logic or that one environment working “better” than another is substantially subjective. In my opinion, one of the key objectives of the SDD is to surface the type of information that previously would have been “secretly” encoded. That information is necessary for SIs to make knowledgeable choices about subsequent components that they may add to a composition or for tools that might analyze topologies and make choices about the deployment.

I also think that target environments is an incomplete substitution for topologies, and prefer the original use.

2.1.2.1.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative topologies and target environments and provide for optional prioritization of those alternatives to assist the install operator in making his choice.

Regards,
Debra

---

From: Christine Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 7:12 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.2.1.1

John (and anyone else),

On 2.1.2.1.1, I assume we agree to replace topology with "target environments", based on previous discussion.

My objection was to the prioritization clause, based on the reasoning that selecting the appropriate topology needs to take into account many external factors (the user's policies, existing workload, solution performance characteristics) and also the overall solution requirements. I do not think the reasons for allowing a vendor to specify prioritizations themselves are compelling. Ones I can think of are preferring use of their own products (this can always be implemented in the install program logic); one environment "working better" than another (often subjective). The latter is the closest I can think for a valid reason - if you need to allow an install in an "unsupported" environment or one which is known to have problems. So I would propose:

PROPOSED (Preferred):

2.1.2.1.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative target environments.



If we really think we need to support distinguishing the alternatives other than by their inherent characteristics, then I'd propose rewording to capture that we are documenting a "preference" rather than a mandated "prioritization".

PROPOSED (Alternate):

2.1.2.1.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative target environments and identifying selection preferences, if any.


ORIGINAL:

2.1.2.1.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of prioritization of alternative topologies.


Regards,
Christine

Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX 78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482