[dmis-bof] suggestion for wording ...

[Arie Shoshani]

William E. Allcock wrote:
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org [mailto:owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Arie Shoshani
>> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 5:29 PM
>> To: allcock at mcs.anl.gov
>> Cc: dmis-bof at ggf.org; Peter Kunszt; Alex Sim; Timur Perelmutov
>> Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Vote for submission of Charter
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> I sent an email yesterday expressing some questions (not sure 
>> if to call 
>> them objections, but I am concerned that the setup phase is 
>> too large of 
>> a scope for this BOF and this activity).  I have not seen a 
>> response.  
>> Here it is again.
>>
>> Arie
>> --------------
>> I saw a couple of items that I'd like to comment on.
>>
>> 1) Regarding the sentence:
>> "Setting up a data movement includes the selection of a transport 
>> protocol, for example GridFTP, and parameters for 
>> reliability, timing, 
>> scheduling, resource usage, accounting, billing, etc. The 
>> Working Group 
>> will explore existing mechanisms to reach such agreement, e.g. 
>> WS-Agreement and use them where appropriate."
>>     
>
> Perhaps we need to reword this section, but I think the intent of this part
> was in response to comments about providing information for the service to
> make prioritization decisions amongst files within a request and between
> requests.  So, reliability might be parameters associated with number of
> retries, backoff, etc.; timing could be fail if it takes more than x hours;
> scheduling could be have it done by x time; resource usage could be use no
> more that 50 Mbs; accounting/billing could be don't exceed z cost.
>
> The issue is that once something has decided the files need to move (like
> SRM) and it gives the service a request for say 100 files, the service
> could, in theory, move those in any order within a request (perhaps we
> should have an option for in order...), or may need to prioritize between
> requests.  So, a user might want to put priorities within a request (though
> I could argue against that), but they certainly might put priorities between
> requests of their own.  This service is intended to be a file movement
> service, along the lines of the existing RFT, FTS, etc..  We have no
> intention of doing SRM type functionality.  It is something SRM might call.
>
> So, I would argue that we need verbiage that says we will want extra
> information available to make prioritization decisions within the service,
> and the information is of the type listed.  Do you have a suggestion for a
> wording change that makes it clearer?
>   
Bill, Here is my attempt.  I avoided the term "setting up", but 
otherwise used your language as-is.

--------------
Prior to initiating the data movement, extra information can be provided 
to the  DMIS in order to make prioritization decisions within the 
service.  This includes the selection of a transport protocol, for 
example GridFTP, and parameters for reliability, timing, scheduling, 
resource usage, accounting, billing, etc. The Working Group will explore 
existing mechanisms to reach such agreement, e.g. WS-Agreement and use 
them where appropriate."
-------------

Arie