Redfish OpenBMC OEM

[Gunnar Mills]

On 11/21/2019 1:22 PM, Gunnar Mills wrote:
>
> On 11/21/2019 12:16 PM, James Feist wrote:
>> On 11/21/19 7:39 AM, Gunnar Mills wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/20/2019 5:50 PM, James Feist wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/19 2:45 PM, Gunnar Mills wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/19/19 10:23 AM, Gunnar Mills wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The process seems a little light for adding OpenBMC OEM 
>>>>>>>>>> Redfish properties and schemas. Can we establish a little 
>>>>>>>>>> more stringent process for adding these?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> DMTF’s Redfish
>>>
>>> They have an open forum here,  to ask questions and request 
>>> features: https://redfishforum.com/
>>>
>>> To get access to the Redfish code repository and meetings
>>> 1) Your company must be a Redfish Supporter or Promoter, a lot of 
>>> companies working on OpenBMC are
>>> 2) Join the DMTF, www.dmtf.org/join
>>> 3) Join the "Redfish Forum" working group, 
>>> https://members.dmtf.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
>>> 4) Send an email asking for access to the Redfish code repository
>>>
>>> I was thinking either of these would establish "engaging Redfish".
>>
>> I'd be fine with adding this to the docs/readme, however as your 
>> company has to be a supporter, it should probably be a weak requirement.
>>
> Added to the DEVELOPING.md here 
> https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/bmcweb/+/27480/
>
> The Redfish Specification Forum, https://redfishforum.com/  is public. 
> Anyone can request features there.
>
Still seems like it is too easy to add Redfish "OpenBMC" OEM and they 
just slip in.

Did we engage Redfish on this one 
https://gerrit.openbmc-project.xyz/c/openbmc/bmcweb/+/28699 ?

Should the schema go in a different repo, and have a different review 
process? Maybe a minimum of N contributing companies have to sign off on 
the interface definition of a Redfish "OpenBMC" OEM? Do others have a 
similar concern?

Thanks!
Gunnar