Event details


  1. Roll Call
  2. Scribe nomination
  3. Review minutes of two previous meetings
  4. Change Management topics
    1. Review revised roadmap
  5. Configuration Management topics
    1. Review revised roadmap
    2. Review,, and


Attendees: Jim Amsden (IBM), Nick Crossley (IBM), David Honey (Persistent/IBM)

Chat transcript from room: oslc-ccm 2017-02-23 GMT-08:00

[07:11] Jim Amsden (IBM): Jim to scribe

[07:11] Jim Amsden (IBM): two previous meeting minutes to review:

[07:11] Nick Crossley (IBM): Review minute of previous meetings at

[07:12] Jim Amsden (IBM): both approved

[07:12] Jim Amsden (IBM): CM issues

[07:13] Jim Amsden (IBM):

[07:14] Jim Amsden (IBM): For action item to list all IBM lots link types: Nick hasnt followed all the references yet, eliminate duplicates, etc.

[07:15] Jim Amsden (IBM): The point is to justify the CM linktypes we do have - are they sufficient, too many.

[07:15] Jim Amsden (IBM): PTC was going to review their linktypes with IBMs to ensure we had a reasonable common subset.

[07:17] Jim Amsden (IBM): the goal wasn't to remove any current CM link types (they're needed for compatibility), or create a lot of new ones

[07:17] Jim Amsden (IBM): The goal is to ensure we have a good representation of the commonality of CM linktypes in practice

[07:18] Jim Amsden (IBM): Action: Jim and Martin to determine if there is any need to further review this, or its unnecessary for this version.

[07:19] Jim Amsden (IBM): Probably would take a day of work to accumulate IBM/RTC linktypes.

[07:21] Jim Amsden (IBM): Updated CM roadmap:

[07:25] Jim Amsden (IBM): Statements of Use for CM 3.0 can be based on CM 2.0 implementations

[07:26] Jim Amsden (IBM): We recognize there are some risks in doing this: CM 3.0 spec errors might not be discovered, new features aren't implemented, new protocols (e.g., LDP headers) aren't tested.

[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM): However, since many core and CM domain features are optional, these existing CM 2.0 implementations are compliant.

[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM): we can let the OASIS Standard vote determine if the risks are sufficiently addressed

[07:27] Jim Amsden (IBM): Config Management:

[07:28] Jim Amsden (IBM): Roadmap updated:

[07:29] Jim Amsden (IBM): There will be some possibilities for SOA (GCM provider, RTC SCM, DNG+RQM, Rhapsody) all different implementations. There are also clients for all of these.

[07:29] Jim Amsden (IBM): PureSystems is also building an independent implementation.

[07:30] Jim Amsden (IBM): So SOU for CCM may not be that difficult.

[07:30] Jim Amsden (IBM): issues 29 and 35 were addressed

[07:30] David Honey (Persistent/IBM):

[07:30] David Honey (Persistent/IBM):

[07:35] Jim Amsden (IBM): Servers may have different approaches to supporting change sets - could be they are not use or required for everything

[07:35] Jim Amsden (IBM): But there could be a case where servers allow users to decide whether they use a change set or not.

[07:37] Jim Amsden (IBM): CCM tries not to mandate how config management systems work.

[07:40] Jim Amsden (IBM): Client sees stream derived from a change set, it knows there is no representation of the intermediate states of that stream

[07:41] Jim Amsden (IBM): Change set will always accurately describe before and after

[07:41] Jim Amsden (IBM): If the change set is derived from a stream, you don't know the before state because stream might have already changed.

[07:42] Jim Amsden (IBM): Client can tell that happened by looking at derived from for the change set and see that it is a stream, not a baseline or another change set.

[07:42] Jim Amsden (IBM): Constraining this could be a server or user option.

[07:43] Jim Amsden (IBM): Change set derived from a stream does not provide an accurate representation of the before state.

[07:50] Jim Amsden (IBM): Section 9 restructured to separate creation of streams and baselines

[07:51] Jim Amsden (IBM): Last paragraph of 9.3, properties not defined in the standard must be defined in the resource shape for the container.

[07:53] David Honey (Persistent/IBM):

[07:57] Jim Amsden (IBM): Action: Nick to apply proposal in issue 35 into the spec.

[07:58] Jim Amsden (IBM): Restructured spec provides the right place for this.

[07:59] David Honey (Persistent/IBM): Can we discuss by email since we've run out of time?

[08:00] Jim Amsden (IBM): creating a single resource shape to describe multiple LDPC types is tricky - Nick backed away from doing that.

[08:00] Nick Crossley (IBM): No other business

[08:00] Nick Crossley (IBM): Meeting adjourned

Meetings/Telecon2017.02.23 (last edited 2017-06-01 14:42:39 by ndjc)