(Logical change 1.18)

git-svn-id: https://svn.mcs.anl.gov/repos/bcfg/trunk/bcfg2@69 ce84e21b-d406-0410-9b95-82705330c041

1 files changed, 26 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/service-model b/doc/service-model
index e69de29bb..26d628cb3 100644
--- a/doc/service-model
+++ b/doc/service-model
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
+One of the more grungy and fragile portions of the bcfg1 configuration
+description interface is that of bundle allocation. To wit, tags are
+used for two purposes in this same process. The first use is for
+initial choice of the software complement for any particular node. The
+second use is for specialization of particular nodes. The use of a tag
+for either purpose isn't particularly discernible from the other,
+moreover, tags can be used for multiple purposes simultaneously. 
+
+<service name='internal-dns' type='dns' scope='local'>
+  <producer host='antares' port='53' type='udp/ip'
+     bundle='dhcp-server'/>
+  <consumer tag='dhcp-config'/>
+</service>
+
+There is a whole lot going on here, so i will highlight the
+particulars i think are important. 
+1. There is explicit linkage between a service and the software that
+   provides it. 
+2. there is an explicit scope to describe "how far" the service goes
+3. there is a notion of what network transport is required. 
+4. you can construct monitoring/firewalling rules from this
+5. you can infer failure cascades from the relationship
+6. tags are used in choosing configurations as a specialization
+   mechanism, no just through bundles.
+
+How do we extend the idea of coherence from bcfg1? 
\ No newline at end of file