index / Automation Meetings / This page

Time: 11:00AM Eastern US (Currently 4pm UTC)

Agenda

Chair: Martin

• Main agenda items:
  • Review 9 Jan minutes
  • Specification issues
    • Automation Specification Version 2.0 Issues - Any new?
    • Automation Specification Version 2.1 Issues - Any new?
  • “Availability” update
    • http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/Availability-Scenarios/
    • New Scenario: Obtain redundancy of workloads
    • New Scenario: ?
  • Automation 2.1
    • “Action resources” update
  • AOB
    • Implementation updates
      • Open forum for implementers to provide updates
      • Summarize any new implementation reports
  • Workgroup business
    • This meeting now clashes with the OSLC Core TC bi-weekly meetings. Should we vote for a new time for our meetings?
• Items for later phases/meetings:
  • Action resources 2.0 - Best practice for inline/referenced resources (or a combination)?
  • Vocab document 2.1 update - New rdf:type URI for template creation dialogs

Actions from previous meetings

• Umberto - Update template dialog draft 2.1 spec to reflect that standard operation is to treat the template as text (or bytes). If the consumer changes anything they have to know what they are doing. (Also add a comment that we expect the template to be POSTed to a creation factory - this currently isn’t mentioned). See 9 Jan minutes.
• Martin - Draft spec for linking template dialogs to creation factories (and other bindings). See 9 Jan minutes.

Minutes

Attending: Martin, Umberto, John, Tim, Jurgen

• Approved minutes from last week
• Jurgen outlined “Obtain redundancy information for a workload” Availability scenario. Short discussion followed:
  • JH to link to scenario 1 in pre-req.
  • Why integration? A different component may be in charge or orchestration or disaster recovery than the component that controls the low-level availability operations. However it’s likely that there will only be one availability product (provider) per site.
    • JH to add the “problem” description to the scenario - i.e. who wants to consume and why
• Jurgen outlined “Failover workloads” Availability scenario. Discussion followed:
  • Did they mean to prescribe AutoPlans, or is that just how they intend to do it themselves? It’s the measn they believe makes most sense.
  • JH to split the scenario description into a general one describing the semantics of the communications, and a specific one describing what that means in terms of AutoPlans.
• Discussed next steps: get general scenarios, discuss options for how these can be achieved, determine scope, draft spec & iteratively improve it.
• Implementation reports help to see what other products/integrations that we might be enabling.