[ClusterLabs Developers] Resurrecting OCF

[Digimer]

On 18/07/16 12:58 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 07/18/2016 11:19 AM, Digimer wrote:
>> On 18/07/16 12:13 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>> A suggestion came up recently to formalize a new version of the OCF
>>> resource agent API standard[1].
>>>
>>> The main goal would be to formalize the API as it is actually used
>>> today, and to replace the "unique" meta-data attribute with two new
>>> attributes indicating uniqueness and reloadability. We could also add
>>> the fence agent API as a new spec, or expand the RA spec to cover both.
>>>
>>> The Open Cluster Framework (OCF) was originally created in 2003 as a
>>> working group of the Free Standards Group, which itself was absorbed
>>> into the Linux Foundation in 2007. Today, OCF isn't even listed among
>>> the Linux Foundation's workgroups[2].
>>>
>>> The opencf.org domain name (and, IIRC, website) is owned by Linbit.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have opinions about this, or suggestions about where to
>>> start? Should we keep it on the mailing lists, and focus on the RA API?
>>> Or should we figure out the status of OCF itself as an entity, and
>>> resurrect it somehow?
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.opencf.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/specs/ra/resource-agent-api.txt?rev=HEAD
>>> [2] http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups
>>
>> I think developing an official, documented API for RAs is a great idea.
>> I don't think it matters much if 'ocf' remains the name for it, though.
>> I would almost suggest that it be a component of Clusterlabs.
>>
>> We want to minimize the apparent complexity of HA with "all these
>> different parts". Present it as an extension of the open source HA
>> effort under clusterlabs, if not a component of pacemaker directly.
>>
>> I would not worry about having a dedicated domain and certainly not a
>> dedicated mailing list. I think that the volume on the clusterlabs
>> developers list is quite low so there would be no problem using that
>> existing list to discuss the (re)development of the API.
>>
>> Formalizing and properly documenting the RA API though is a brilliant idea.
>>
>> My $0.02. :)
> 
> Agreed. If the Linux Foundation doesn't mind relinquishing the OCF name,
> ClusterLabs could become the organization that publishes the OCF
> standards. Otherwise, we could publish a ClusterLabs API spec and call
> it "OCF-compatible", so we could keep the ocf: syntax that everyone's
> familiar with.
> 
> Last year's HA summit in Brno discussed the reverse possibility, of
> resurrecting OCF within the Linux Foundation, and integrating
> ClusterLabs with that somehow. The benefit would be to encourage wider
> participation, by being part of a larger group with higher visibility
> and nonprofit status. But there's probably more bureaucracy with that
> approach.

I think being under the Linux Foundation might be useful eventually. For
now though, as you suggest, avoiding the bureaucracy and building our
own internal identity is more important. Lets get ourselves established
over the next few years, then revisit joining LF later.

-- 
Digimer
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/
What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without
access to education?