Follow-up on last week.
Malcolm explained that some cases had been missed.
Malcolm explained the above cycle.
UNAVAILABLE indicates that the resource is temporarily unavailable.
The following diagram had not yet been discussed.
Malcolm then explained how to move between the three cases above.
Malcolm noted that he had also done a temporal expression.
The server can chose to not advertise the resource is free.
Chris questioned the names of the cases "variable capacity" and "fixed capacity". Two distinct things seem to be mixed. dedicatedness and permanence.
Chris suggested that a table showing the combination of these properties and indicating how they interact.
There was a discussion on resource availability. A resource is available for 2 hours a day for 5 years and there is a maintenance window every year.
Normal exit flow is PENDING_WITHDRAWAL → PENDING_WITHDRAWAL_FREE → Final
Emphasize the main flow.
Leo asked whether there was a soft version of POTENTIAL_FREE/BUSY for the shared resource. Capacity available 0.
Scheduled withdrawal is related to the contract temporal expression.
Recognizing there is a continuum is important, but the specific cases simplify understanding and application.
Malcolm will continue.
|35 min||Control model||Malcolm/Nigel|
Malcolm summarized the discussion from 2021-05-20 OIMT Meeting notes highlighting the planning cycle.
Malcolm explained that the focus was building a controller.
This leads to...
Chris pointed out that the lowest controller is (in) a device.
Malcolm moved on to the specific case below.
Nigel noted that these properties will have been identified in a catalogue that defined the control services that can be offered and this catalogue would have a backend that explained the realization opportunities.
Malcolm pointed out that there is a PEP in the middle of "the box"
Discussed the propagation of rules up the stack. There may be a rule of thumb.
Malcolm noted that there needs to be some careful platform engineering.
Malcolm noted the changes (in blue) to the access security.
Malcolm noted that Chris has found a number of interesting supportive papers.
Malcolm moved on to timelines.
Malcolm emphasized where the key security threats are. Malcom noted the creation of the controller and client context may be in a test environment.
A redesign adds further interesting twists.
Chris noted that the server controller will limit resources.
Planning exposure context could be added to the overall client capability.
Chris note that the variable capacity model fitted well with migration..
Cutover becomes potentially very elegant.
|0 min||Next calls|
Planned agenda items
Future call agenda items