RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1

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

OK, I'll withdraw my disagreement on this one, too - again with the proviso that "priority" is just one input into decision making, and not a guarantee that the highest-priority valid configuration will be applied..

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 03:50 PM

To	Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1

Good question. I had to think that one through a bit. My conclusion is that the difference is in the specificity and the scope. Where topologies are relationships between components and the network nodes that they are installed on, or targeted to, or logically mapped to; and that configurations are specific sets of parameter or property values and settings that would be required to realize a physical topology and to move a solution into use.

I would expect information about alternative topologies to be used in composition of solutions (by SI), in deployment planning (by IT installation management, for example), and in the authoring of alternative configurations (by SI, by IT installation management, by solution author). The configurations to be used farther down the food chain, during the actual installation and configuration phases.

Regards,
Debra

---

From: Christine Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:45 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1

Debra,

This may seem like a rather basic question, but can you give an example of what "prioritizing alternative configurations" mean, that wouldn't be covered by prioritizing topology/target environment?

Regards,
Chrisitne

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 12:50 PM

To	Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1

Disagree – same rationale as my disagreement with 2.1.2.1.1. I believe that communicating information about “better” choices is important and in scope.

Regards,
Debra

---

From: Christine Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 7:16 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1

All,

On 2.1.4.1 I have a similar issue to 2.1.2.1.1. Prioritization of alternative configuration is not something that should be mandated by the author of a particular component, both because of external factors and overall solution requirements. At most, the author should be able to establish a preference, but I can't think of a good use case for that which isn't captured by specifying preferences for the target environment. Can anyone else? If not, I would propose:

PROPOSED:

2.1.4.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative configurations.


ORIGINAL:


2.1.4.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative configuration and identify a default and/or prioritizing of those alternatives.

Regards,
Christine

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