How to represent ODCRs in FOCUS (Alternate)

[ahullah]

Alternative recommendation from Chris for a more flexible/generic way to incorporate ODCRs without requiring single use columns

[jpradocueva]

Summary:

The group discussed two alternative approaches for representing On-Demand Capacity Reservations (ODCR) in FOCUS: creating new columns for capacity reservations or using a related resource ID.

Discussion:

• Alex presented two approaches:
  • PR #509: Creating new columns specific to capacity reservations
  • PR #515: Using a generic related resource ID
• The merits of each approach were debated, considering future-proofing and flexibility.
• The related resource ID approach was seen as more flexible but potentially more complex.

Questions & Answers:

• Q: Is the related resource ID meant to cover various types of relationships?
• A: Yes, but it needs to be specific to avoid ambiguity.
• Q: Should we stick to single-use columns for clarity?
• A: This approach might be more straightforward for initial implementation.

Agreements Reached:

• Further discussion is needed to decide the best approach.
• The importance of clearly defining the relationships and their allowable values was acknowledged.

Action Items, TF-3, Aug 2nd call:

• [ ] All Members: Review and provide feedback on both approaches to determine the best path forward.

Action Items from TF-3 call on Friday, Aug 9th.

@AWS-ZachErdman, @ahullah

• [ ] [TF3-#509-#515] George: To lead further discussions on Slack and summarize the current state of the debate.
• [ ] [TF3-#509-#515] George & Joaquin: To collaborate on summarizing the discussion and sharing notes in the Slack channel, inviting feedback from other team members.
• [ ] [TF3-#509-#515] Zach: To be consulted for his opinions and potential refinements to the proposals.
• [ ] [TF3-#509-#515] All Members: To review the summarized notes and PRs, and contribute to the ongoing discussion in the Slack channel to reach a consensus.

[AWS-ZachErdman]

this makes sense as an alternative for adding an ID column, but this PR is missing the use cases of: 1/ used vs unused status 2/ capacity total

[jpradocueva]

Agreements Reached during TF-3, Aug 16:

• PR #515 will not be pursued further.
• FOCUS will be on developing a column for ODCR status, with the ID column introduced as a "SHOULD" rather than a "MUST."
• JSON was ruled out as an option for storing ODCR data due to the complexity and lack of standardization.

Action Items:

• [ ] [TF3-#397] George to draft a PR for the new “ID” and “Status” columns related to ODCRs.

• [ ] [TF3-#397] to consult AWS for further guidance on the feasibility of providing a CR ID in the billing data.

@ahullah for further details, please refer to TF-3 Meeting Minutes, Aug 16

[jpradocueva]

Topic superseded by https://github.com/FinOps-Open-Cost-and-Usage-Spec/FOCUS_Spec/pull/523