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

[Michel Drescher]

Hi Mark, all,

brilliant - I'd vote for taking this into the experience document  
unaltered.

Cheers,
Michel
On 7 May 2008, at 17:31, Mark Morgan wrote:

>> Which versions of the of the WS-Addressing Spec did you use?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing which corresponds to 1.0.
>
>> Could you check Section 4b and comment on whether this is an adequate
>> description of the process?
>
> Seems fine to me.
>
>> What is our agreed conclusion?
>
> Well, I would say something along the lines of this:
>
> The ByteIO interoperability fiesta success shows that the  
> specification
> describes a pair of port types which, with minor fixes as indicated in
> this document, can be implemented by separate organizations in an
> unambigous (with respect to interface and port type) way.  These grids
> can, together with other specifications provided by the OGF (for
> example, the OGSA-WSRF-BP), can then be used interoperably by users.
> Further, the interop. fiest also shows that virtual interoperability
> festivals are feasable and under the right circumstances can be used
> effectively.
>
> Its worth noting that the task taken on by Michel Drescher to  
> provide an
> interoperability test document which was then vetted by the standard  
> OGF
> document process proved invaluable in making the ByteIO Interop  
> Fiesta a
> success.  His careful attention to detail allowed for the fiesta
> participants to provide rigorous tests that could easily be validated
> and "graded" for success.
>
> If there was any negative aspects to the interop fiesta, they would be
> along the lines of the standards problems that seem inherent in OGF  
> and
> web services interop festivals in general.  Namely, the specifications
> themselves rely on tooling, core specifications, and other 3rd party
> products that tend to hamper success.  WS-Addressing and WSDL are both
> complex specifications that have a tendency to promote only partially
> correct implementations.  Fiesta participants often rely on tooling to
> manipulate these specifications and end doing so can end up becoming
> tied to a fundamentally flawed tool or library.  It has been this
> writers experience that no grid implementation is free from this
> particular problem and the fact that the issues seem to continually
> raise their ugly heads indicates a fundamental flaw in either the
> process, or the foundations on which the grid services world has built
> it's specifications.
>
> In summary, this particular interop fiesta has shown that ByteIO is a
> reasonable and implementable specification that promised good
> interoperability.  Many of the projects included have shown that the
> specification itself is also useful to grid implementers and  
> presumably
> to their target users.
>
> 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?
>
> Done, please see attached.
>
>> Could you elaborate on what aspects of WS-Addressing were a barrier  
>> to
>> interoperation for Section 6d?
>
> Done, please see attached.
>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, I would say that that is a fair re-wording.
> <ByteIO_Experiences_Common_0_5.doc>--
>  byteio-wg mailing list
>  byteio-wg at ogf.org
>  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/byteio-wg