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

[Mark Morgan]

I'm on this now.  I'm sorry I didn't get to it yesterday, but I was out
of the office all day yesterday I'm afraid.

-Mark

On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 18:19 +0100, neil p chue hong wrote:
> 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
> 
>