[acs-wg] Comments on Working Draft

[Keisuke Fukui]

Hi Mike,

Michael Behrens wrote:
 > Just re-read the latest draft ACS specification and wanted to send in
 > some more feedback - looking good!

Thanks. Here are some comments on your questions.

 > - Recommend that the requirements be amended to include the compilation
 > model as discussed in the last telecom.

Yes, we should discuss more in detail; it sounds reasonable
to facilitate this kind of use case at this moment, though I
guess we need a discrimination how much we can increment the archive
in the repository in terms of size and variation.

 > - Are there two types of dependencies:  install/deploy time and
 > runtime?  Perhaps the deploy time could include the compilation engines
 > whereas the runtime could just include what is needed to run the job.
 > Just a thought as perhaps based on this it might be possible for clients
 > of ACS to inquire what is needed ahead of time to prepare, etc.

I understand as you pointed. I'd like to hear more from Naregi engineers
on this point.

 > - Should AAID be defined using the results of WS-Naming working group?

I guess so, and we need to find out how IUDD address this.

 > - Security - Would the signature be created and checked automatically by
 > the implementation of ARI or by Business Activity Managers?

I believe so.

 > -  Is there a possible relationship between ACS and software such as
 > Install Shield or Install Anywhere?  Curious.

Install Shield like products handles more generic software installation
rather than the grid applications. In my opinion, they are more relevant
with IUDD. AAF of the ACS itself should be positioned as a grid extension
of the generic software installation which is the IUDD. One question is
that AAF can be an additional specification to the existing IUDD or
it is an addition AND subtraction to the IUDD specification, to be a
grid extension.

  -Keisuke