1. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership 1 18 July 2007 DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Observations & Recommendations

2. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations2 18 July 2007 Agenda  Items in work registered pursued  Observations –General –Reviews –Schema Submission  Recommendations

3. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations3 18 July 2007 Work Register Items Pursued  Review / Comment (1Q2007) –DSP 0225: URI Format for Published XML Schema –DSP 0230: WS-CIM Mapping Specification  Extrapolate from the OGSA-BES work and submit to DMTF a general container model (current work in progress)  Identify the base set of grid resources that need to be advertised that applications can consume (via requirements) and update the CIM as needed including how best to map/leverage information models (current work in progress)

4. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations4 18 July 2007 Observations: General  Alliance partner work registers identify contacts (from DMTF and alliance partner) needed to execute the work register, but –Nothing in place to require acknowledgement and/or acceptance by the DMTF contact(s) –Votes for approval of the work register do not require voting by the DMTF contact(s) –Consequence appears to be that CIM workgroups (e.g. CIMCore and WIP in the OGF case) are not even aware of work register until after the fact, if even then  Typical response from DMTF is its membership is a “voluntary army and does the best it can” –It can take a very long time for alliance partners to get through the DMTF layers/groups/processes/people to get submissions addressed

5. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations5 18 July 2007 Observations: DSP Reviews  Submission of comments from alliance partner via DMTF web site is easy  Manual handling of submitted comments confuses role of submitter, e.g. when DMTF member is alliance partner submitter although form clearly states role of submitter  DMTF processing of and response to web site submitted comments extremely slow, if done at all –No automated process to get comments to correct workgroups / subgroups –No process to acknowledge receipt of comments –No process to return DMTF response to comments to submitter  Requires constant tracking by submitter from start to finish, e.g. 2 months of email/calls/F2F to get closure

6. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations6 18 July 2007 Observations: Schema Submit to CIM (1) GOAL: Coordinated release of OGF docs and CIM Schema with CIMv2.16 (Aug 2007)  Long time to get on TC agenda to socialize the submission so TC will assign it to the correct CIM workgroup (although work register already identifies this) –Took several weeks; got bounced from one week’s agenda to another week’s agenda (no time left: schedule integrity)  Socialization with CIMCore WG not well received –CIMCore wants control and final decisions; they consider themselves the only experts –Not interested in how submission fits in overall strategy of OGF model work (or even OGF model strategy/direction) –A conclusion could be that the BasicExecutionService and Container elements are really not part of base/common CIM, but rather grid model direction specific (we may see more of this type of conclusion as we – OGF – complete the GLUE and OGSA Resource Model work)  Action on OGF work submitted to CIMCore WG requires proactive external involvement –Require justification (in text) for every decision made on placement/derivation of submitted model objects in any OGF work submitted to this workgroup –Once change request (CR) for this work is submitted to CIMCore, was informed it may take up to 3 months to get concurrence of new model objects/elements (CRs are balloted and discussed once a week until resolved, time permitting)

7. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations7 18 July 2007 Observations: Schema Submit to CIM (2)  Ballot process –Process does not define a minimum number of companies that must vote to constitute a valid ballot cycle (e.g. June 1: 4 votes – 1 yes, 3 no; June 15: 1 yes, 3 no, 1 abstain; June 22: 3 yes) Some overlap of voting companies on ballots No required vote on succeeding ballot by company that voted no on previous version of the ballot (implicit approval) –Some comments not concrete, hence not actionable –Verbal comments from companies that did vote indicated that there will be additional written comments forthcoming on succeeding ballots…so a ballot is not really a ballot but an ongoing work mechanism to achieve 100% consensus among voters; not all vocal participants voted, so one can (and does) receive additional companies’ comments on succeeding ballots and at the TC level –Was told to work with other CIMCore workgroup people within my company to resolve comments….how does an alliance person who is not a DMTF member company do this? –Nearly possible to ballot changes in consecutive weeks because time is too short unless revision is trivial (e.g. CIMCore ballots close and are discussed Friday noon, revisions must be ready to reballot by Sunday evening) –It was re-iterated that it would take at least a month to reach 100% consensus on ballot…finally passed workgroup ballot on June 22

8. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations8 18 July 2007 Recommendations GOAL: Encourage wider participation and acceptance of CIM and provide a meaningful basis for the yearly DMTF Alliance Partner Conference and the DMTF Management Development Conference  Improve DMTF Processes –Address Alliance Partner comments to document/schema submitted via DMTF web site (start to closure) –Alliance work register process to capture acknowledgement and buy-in from the workgroups and committees up-front through required voting and workgroup participation in work register items  DMTF delegate control of the broader CIM model to encourage wider participation and acceptance –DMTF to retain control of the common or base parts of the model (still need to work with Alliance Partners where submitted model elements are or should be part of common/base CIM) DMTF needs to acknowledge these contributions from alliance partners because DMTF requires the contributed schema to contain only DMTF copyright –DMTF to delegate ownership (via the CIM extension definition) to bodies/communities that have expertise, e.g. ARTS for the retail/POS model, SNIA for storage, OGF for grid aggregations (OGSA/GLUE) –DMTF to accept and publicize that these delegated parts of CIM are an integral part of CIM and not second class citizens –DMTF to provide web site to hold these extension models so DMTF is viewed as authoritative source for CIM (and all its extensions) Users can have ‘one stop shopping’ for authoritative models –DMTF to provide non-membership use of compilation tools so CIM schema can be validated, e.g. syntax –Consider delegating development of other protocols, e.g. XML using standard XML constructs to further the adoption of CIM –Do a prototype project to develop detailed proposal and then execute on to fine tune delegation proposal

9. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations9 18 July 2007 BACKUP MATERIAL

10. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations10 18 July 2007 Timeline Summary for Schema Submission  Timeline to date –Mid-April: request for item on TC agenda –April 24: on TC agenda, but got pushed 1 week (no time left on call to address) –May 1: socialized with TC; assigned to CIMCore WG –May 15, 18, 22: socialization with CIMCore plus off-line work (little progress); CIMCore requested that CR be submitted by May 25 for June 1 ballot (done) –3 CIMCore ballots (June 1, 15, 22) before CR was approved by the workgroup on June 22 for inclusion in CIMv2.16 experimental –Approved by TC July 10 for CIMv2.16 experimental –CIMv2.16 (final & experimental): TC ballot Aug 8, Board ballot Aug 15, Release 8/22

11. DMTF-OGF Alliance Partnership Partnership Observations/Recommendations11 18 July 2007 Informal DMTF Discussions  With key DMTF players: –DMTF Board Chair: Mike Baskey, IBM –DMTF VP Technology: Jeff Hilland, HP –DMTF VP Alliances: Mark Carlson, SUN  With key OGF players: –Liaison to DMTF: Tom Roney, University of Illinois –OGSA workgroup –GFSG standards call –GFSG plenary call