[cgl_discussion] Re: [OCF]draft 0.8 of the SAF Application Interface specification

Lars Marowsky-Bree lmb at suse.de
Tue Jan 7 07:11:24 PST 2003

On 2002-12-10T11:21:38,
   Peter Badovinatz <tabmowzo at us.ibm.com> said:

Hi all, it took me a while to get to the OCF list after my shamefully long
vacation (of which I am somehow not ashamed at all ;-), but I have a few
thoughts to add here:

> >   The main issue is that the license is revocable until this
> > is resolved.  Because of this the risk to anybody who produces
> > open source software based on this specification is very high.
> Intent is to address the revocation issue at the SAF Board meeting in
> mid-January (before Linux World). 
> Also, I have made arrangements for the OSDL CGL Technical working group
> to have face to face meetings in conjunction with Linux World New York
> (Jan 21-23).  
> The SAF have requested (and I have requested of them) to have a couple
> of their technical leads participate with OSDL CGL, so you can all find
> out that SAF isn't simply a delusion of my imagination.
> As OCF folks will ALSO be having a face to face concurrently in NYC in
> January, we should have all the players in one place.

I am very much in favor in aligning OCF and SAF as far as possible; afterall,
this is all about increasing interoperability. I'm not religious on doing this
annoying standarization work myself at all.

Our (SuSE's) point of view is that we 'just' need the API definition part
solved to reduce our pain at integration time; and if SAF gets that 80% right,
and if they are available under a suitable license (this being a very
important 'if'), I think we (this time, OCF ;) can benefit immensely.

It is, I think, clear that OCF did not have the impact we all hoped for, for
manifold reasons - no bandwagon effect has happened. A boost here is needed,
and I am all for pragmatic solutions.

If SAF does have the backing and thus the impact and addresses the overlapping
parts adequately (no spec is perfect in version 1.0), we could rather join
forces on the remaining parts.

I'd expect both sides would need to make some accomodations for the other -
we'd need to find a way how we could contribute to the SAF process, for
example - but in the end, it would be a real win for all.

I think SAF would profit from having a OSS implementation available; this
seems to be in line with the CGL and DCL projects, and we could join forces on
this task. OCF could benefit from the work already done and concentrate on
other issues.

I will be in NYC from the 21st to the 26th and am looking forward to
discussing these possibilites.

    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb at suse.de>, speaking for SuSE

Principal Squirrel 
SuSE Labs - Research & Development, SuSE Linux AG
"If anything can go wrong, it will." "Chance favors the prepared (mind)."
  -- Capt. Edward A. Murphy            -- Louis Pasteur

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list