Talk:Redfish (specification)

Reviewer Note

This draft appears to satisfy notability.

There already is a redlink in Distributed Management Task Force for this specification.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC

I remarked that the article is concerned with externall links. Could someone be more precise and help me improve it so it satisfies Wikipedia's quality level ? I tried to put most of them as external references, but others were making sense to me in the body of the article, so I'd like to get guidance here please. TIA Bruno Cornec 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcornec (talk • contribs)

After reading again the page, I wonder whether the section "Redfish libraries and tools" is not what lead to that warning. I found much more useful to provide direct links to the tools in that section, rather than making redirections to the bottom of the page, which in that case is much less relevant than for quotes cmoing from external articles. But I'm looking for feedback on that if that's not the best practice. Bruno Cornec 15:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcornec (talk • contribs)

Suggesting update to Work in Progress list

Please ignore for current lack of reliable third-party verification, suggested edit "There is WIP for Telemetry, Ethernet Switching, DCIM, and OCP & Profiles," at the end of the History section to "There is WIP for Ethernet Switching, DCIM, and OCP," -- based on 28 February 2019 email from Michael Raineri, co-chair of DMTF Redfish Forum, stating that Telemetry and Profiles have been published. When I find third-party verification, I'll be back. Thank you. GGSloth (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting edit to Work in Progress list

I am suggesting the following update edit to the WIP list (History section, bottom of paragraph 1). My thinking for utilizing a primary source is based on the Work in Progress list being "a straightforward, descriptive [statement] of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - from the NOR page.

Spelling out WIP is for readability on a page filled with other, less common, acronyms.

OLD: There is WIP for Telemetry, Ethernet Switching, DCIM, and OCP & Profiles.

NEW: There is work in progress for Ethernet Switching, DCIM, and OCP.

Thanks for your time and attention. GGSloth (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Work in Progress list

• Information to be added or removed:
  • OLD: "There is WIP for Telemetry, Ethernet Switching, DCIM, and OCP & Profiles." (This is located in the History section, bottom of para. 1.)
  • REPLACE WITH: "There is Work in Progress for Ethernet Switching, DCIM, and OCP."

• Explanation of issue: 1) My thinking for utilizing a primary source is based on the Work in Progress list being "a straightforward, descriptive [statement] of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - from the NOR page, section 3/1/1. 2) Spelling out "Work in progress" is for readability on a page filled with other, less common, acronyms.

• References supporting change: Sorry, I don't know how to link to the specific spot in the NOR page, labeled above as section 3, subsection 1, sub-subsection 1.

Thank you for your time and attention. GGSloth (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 13-APR-2019

  Clarification requested  

1. Your request does not state what it is, about the separation of "OCP" from "& Profiles" in the text, that necessitates the terms being unlinked in this manner. Specifically what it is, about that separation, which makes it an improvement — this has not been stated.
2. You've included in your request the text (This is located in the History section, bottom of para. 1.) But in the way you've incorporated it, it's not immediately clear whether this is a direction from you as the edit request proposer, or if this is merely quoted text from the article which you wish to remove. If it were the latter, the use of quotation marks would extend to the text in question. In this case, they do not. In fact, the use of parentheses indicates that this is a direction rather than a quotation. If this is a direction, its meaning is unclear.
3. The mentioning of WP:NOR is likewise unclear.

When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly open a new edit request. Thank you!
Regards,  Spintendo  20:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Work in Progress list

Information to be added or removed:

OLD: There is WIP for Telemetry, Ethernet Switching, DCIM, and OCP & Profiles.
NEW: There is work in progress for Ethernet Switching, DCIM, and OCP.

Explanation of issue:

1. I am suggesting this update to the WIP list because Telemetry and Profiles are now published and no longer work in progress.
2. My thinking for utilizing a primary source as verification is based on the Work in Progress list being -- as described on the WP:NOR page -- "a straightforward, descriptive [statement] of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."
3. Spelling out WIP is for readability on a page filled with other, less common, acronyms.

Reference supporting change:

https://www.dmtf.org/standards/redfish

Thank you for your time and effort. GGSloth (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 18-APR-2019

  Edit request implemented  

• Thank you for the clarification of your earlier request, that was much appreciated.

1. WIP has been delineated as work in progress.
2. Telemetry has been omitted.
3. Profiles has been omitted.
   

 Additional changes made:

1. The Features heading was omitted, as the majority of information under that heading was not referenced per WP:INTEGRITY, and appeared to be a description of how the technolgy was utilised, per WP:RELEASENOTES.

Regards,  Spintendo  01:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

@Spintendo:Thank you very much for making the requested WIP list edit, and taking the additional step of deleting the Features section. I am uncertain if this is the correct page and approach to ask you for a bit of clarification -- or if, as a paid editor, I should be doing this at all -- but I hope to better understand the process and avoid mistakes in the future. Two questions:

   1. Did you omit the in-line citation I provided for the WIP list because it really is a "matter of fact" and the citation was unneeded, or some other reason?

   2. Regarding the Features section, the lack of referencing is unarguable, but I don't quite follow the relevance of WP:RELEASENOTES. The Summary-only section there says it applies to creative works, e.g., art and fiction, which Redfish is not, nor is it exactly a video game. It's more of an available standard, I think.
   I can see the logic of treating it according to the "encyclopedic manner," and I'd agree then that a description of how the technology [is] utilised doesn't fit well. But am I reading that correctly? I just want to be sure I understand your (and WP's) thinking here.

Thank you for your time and attention. GGSloth (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-MAY-2019

1. The citation in question already exists as an external link in the External links section.
2. WP:RELEASENOTES does not apply only to creative works such as art and fiction.

• Please note: I don't actively monitor this page, so any queries directed at me will go unanswered unless an edit request template is placed.

 Spintendo  01:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting a change to the lead sentence

Suggesting a change to the lead sentence

EXISTING: The Redfish standard is a suite of specifications that deliver an industry standard protocol providing Software Defined Management for Converged infrastructure.

NEW: The Redfish standard is a suite of specifications that deliver an industry standard protocol providing a RESTful interface for the management of servers, storage, networking, converged infrastructure, and other data center equipment.

REASONING: The existing sentence is inaccurate, in that it implies that Redfish is limited to converged infrastructure, when actually it works for managing a single device (like a small business server) or a whole datacenter of advanced "converged" products.

Thank you for your time and attention. GGSloth (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting edit of lead sentence

   Information to be added or removed: 

EXISTING: The Redfish standard is a suite of specifications that deliver an industry standard protocol providing Software Defined Management for Converged infrastructure.

NEW: The Redfish standard is a suite of specifications that deliver an industry standard protocol providing a RESTful interface for the management of servers, storage, networking, converged infrastructure, and other data center equipment.

REASONING: The existing sentence is inaccurate, in that it implies that Redfish is limited to converged infrastructure, when actually it works for managing a single device (like a small business server) or a whole datacenter of advanced "converged" products.

URLs: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/21/redfish_extensions/ https://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/show-reports/347342-advances-in-usb-pcie-infiniband-and-redfish-point-the-way-forward-at-idf

Thank you for your time and effort. GGSloth (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-MAY-2019

   Clarification needed  

• "...and other data center equipment" is not specified. Please clarify.

It was an "... and we will be doing other stuff later" phrase -- vague, and I suspect inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry, so I removed it. Thanks for pointing it out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GGSloth (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to repeat use of the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template each time a request is made. A singular template containing this exact information is already located at the bottom of the talk page's header materials.

Good to know, thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by GGSloth (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Regards,  Spintendo  01:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to lead sentence

Information to be added or removed:
EXISTING: The Redfish standard is a suite of specifications that deliver an industry standard protocol providing Software Defined Management for Converged infrastructure.

NEW: The Redfish standard is a suite of specifications that deliver an industry standard protocol providing a RESTful interface for the management of servers, storage, networking, and converged infrastructure.

REASONING: The existing sentence is inaccurate, in that it implies that Redfish is limited to converged infrastructure, when actually it works for managing a single device (like a small business server) or a whole datacenter of advanced "converged" products.

• https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/21/redfish_extensions/
• https://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/show-reports/347342-advances-in-usb-pcie-infiniband-and-redfish-point-the-way-forward-at-idf

Thank you for your time and effort. GGSloth (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply 10-JUN-2019

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  23:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting deletion/reversion of "HUAWEI?"

Information to be removed:
EXISTING: HUAWEI? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Redfish_(specification)&diff=920096210&oldid=913884697

REASONING: The edit fails to provide any factual information. If reverting this is something even an editor with COI should do himself, please let me know.

Thank you for your help. GGSloth (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply 15-NOV-2019

  Reverted to status quo ante  

• This type of revision would seem to fall under WP:COIU.

Regards,  Spintendo  00:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)