Time: 10:00AM Eastern US (contact MichaelFiedler if you’d like to participate)

Agenda

• Main agenda items:

  • Specification issues
    • Automation Specification Version 2.0 Issues
    • New issues?
  • Implementation updates
    • Open forum for implementers to provide updates
  • Review 21 March Minutes

  • Automation V3

    • V3 Scenarios. Possible items for discussion depending on attendance:

      • Proposed Temporary deployment scenarios.

        • Dependencies on environments and complex teardown

        • Additional temporary deployment scenarios

          • Negligent clients (who do not deregister their interest when done). This is partially addressed at the end of this scenario’s page on the wiki.
          • Are there any further scenarios that could use a “Client” resource on the service provider? Scenarios using composed automation requests - where one request simply kicks off other requests (possible on other providers).
          • This scenario could cause particular problems when a third party registers interest in one of those “child” deployed resources, as then:
            • We don’t want to tear down that particular resource when the parent one finishes - we want to wait for the third party to finish.
            • We don’t want to tear down any deployed resources that that particular one depends on.
          • This leads us into: dependency modelling (using the Common IT Resource Type Vocabulary), and the scenarios that would use it.
          • Also worth considering provider-to-provider relations, as we need to be able to look up “dependsOn” relationships from other providers to the resources in this provider. I believe that there is work in the core WG about this sort of thing.

    • Additional scenarios?

  • Doodle poll results
  • Next meeting - Proposed:
    • Thursday, 11 April at 11 AM Eastern US

Minutes

Attending: Michael Fiedler, Martin Pain, Steven Rowles, Steve Speicher, Paul McMahan, John Abbott, Umberto Caselli, John Arwe, Tuan Dang, Rohit Shetty

• Specification issues
  • no new issues
• Implementation update
  • Will get an implementation report from IBM Tivoli Workload scheduler
  • Met with Eclipse Hudson lead at EclipseCon - interest in re-starting possible implementation
• Review of 21 March minutes
  • Clarified some comments in the minutes. See the minutes for the relevant comments
• Temporary deployment scenarios
  • Martin walked the workgroup through a potential scenario/use case documented here . Comments from the workgroup:
    • There should be no assumption that the Automation Result in someway represents the deployment. The spec should enable the case where it does and does not represent it.
    • Consumer awareness of each other being interested in a deployment
      • It might be common that consumers can see or discover each other via query.
      • But there are scenarios (regulated environments, security configurations) where this might not hold. Don’t assume.
    • Orchestrator/Provider awareness of each other participating in a larger deployment
      • Need to specify enough that desired result achieved when providers not aware each other exist
    • Need consideration what the specification MUST requirements are here. Best to treat this scenario as a profile/module - IF supported THEN some normative language comes into scope
    • Relationship between deployed environments - dependsOn - need to discuss direction and nature of relationship
    • Consumer registration of interest
      • Proposal: new resource consumers POST/create. Automation result contains triple for this result (subject/object direction TBD). This is attractive since it is under client control - easier to meet security constraints.
      • Proposal: consumers PUT/update existing Automation results. Possibly not as clean
      • Need to consider negligent consumers and expiry
    • TODOs and owners
      1. Create “issues” section on Temporary deployment scenarios page for tracking. Document current issues. Owners: Michael Fiedler and Martin Pain
      2. Create sequence diagram and maybe a graphic to illustrate the scenario from the mailing list. Owners: Michael Fiedler and Martin Pain
      3. Poll other OSLC workgroups to see if the consumer interest registration resource might be applicable for other domains. Owner: Michael Fiedler
• New Scenarios
  • Automation template scenario. Owner: Umberto Caselli
    • Some consumers want a template of an Automation Request which is “mostly” ready to use to request an execution.
    • End-user creates the template and schedules it for execution in the future
    • At the future time, the real Automation Request is submitted with perhaps a final few parameter values supplied
    • TODO: Document the scenario on the Wiki. Michael Fiedler to create the page, Umberto Caselli to document
• Workgroup business
  • New meeting time is weekly at 11AM Eastern US every Thursday
  • Next meeting: Thursday, 11 April at 11 AM Eastern US