[BYTEIO-WG] URGENT: answers to comments needed - Draft 0.4 of ByteIO Experiences document

[neil p chue hong]

Hi All (but particularly Mark, Amy and Shahbaz),

Michel and I would like to progress the document so that it's ready for
submission to the editor.

To do this, could you review the following comments:

All:

Which versions of the of the WS-Addressing Spec did you use?

Could you check Section 4b and comment on whether this is an adequate
description of the process?

What is our agreed conclusion?

I believe we should cover:
- how doing the interop virtually was a good idea
- how having the interop doc from michel was a good idea, and how the
process of interop helped to improve the doc
- how tooling is a problem
- how WS-Addressing may throw up issues
- how we feel ByteIO will become useful in implementations

Mark:

Could you contribute your part for Section 3c?

Could you elaborate on what aspects of WS-Addressing were a barrier to
interoperation for Section 6d?

Can you check that the following: "The RandomByteIO interface has proven
invaluable in the Genesis II system. Along with RNS, it is used through the
system on every service implemented for management and user interface", is
still true and accurate after my rewording.

Amy:

Do you want to provide me with a note following up on the status of the EPCC
implementation and what aspects you feel would have passed but were not
abale to be tested?

Could you expand Section 6c to mention what aspects you were able to test
manually, despite the factory problems. Also, can you explain the main
reasons why some tooling was unable to access it (is it related to any
changes which are not mentioned in the earlier sections?). Finally, what
tooling didn’t work.

Shahbaz:

In the second sentence of "Forschungszentrum Jülich (FZJ) participated in
the OGSA-ByteIO Interoperability fiesta by presenting a UNICORE file
transfer service implementation. UNICORE leverages the ByteIO specification
for the file staging purposes besides other core services" when you write
"besides" do you mean “as well as”/”along with” or “that are used in”?

When you write: "FZJ has implemented ByteIO with optional and mandatory
elements  except RandomByteIO ‘s “Last Access Time” and the same rationale
holds as with FLE implementation", do you mean “FZJ has implemented all
mandatory and optional elements of the ByteIO specification with the
exception of RandomByteIO “Last Access Time”, which has been omitted for the
same reasons as described in the FLE implementation notes”?

Cheers,
neil


-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ByteIO_Experiences_Common_0_4.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 300032 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/byteio-wg/attachments/20080506/15e67907/attachment-0001.obj