[DRMAA-WG] DRMAA2 Draft 6, next steps, no conf call

[Mariusz Mamoński]

Hi,

2011/6/21 Peter Tröger <peter at troeger.eu>:
> Dear all,
>
> after a very productive face-to-face meeting in Potsdam, we ended up with
> the new draft 6 of the DRMAAv2 spec. Please find attached the document. I
> would like to thank Mariusz, Daniel G. and Andre Merczy for investing their
> time and effort.
>
> The good news is that we were able to clarify all pending functional issues.
> We are now in a sanity check phase, were the text itself gets some
> proof-reading to find inconsistencies.
>
> Since at least three group members are now into reading and editing, I will
> drop the call for this week. If no serious (I mean *really* serious) things
> are found, we will wrap-up in a couple of days and perform the official
> "last call" for comments on the list.
>
> Beside that, we started some initial debate on the C binding. Please
> understand that this discussion will go public only after the IDL spec was
> submitted, in order to avoid redundant efforts.
>
> Best regards,
> Peter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>  drmaa-wg mailing list
>  drmaa-wg at ogf.org
>  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/drmaa-wg
>

Result of my proof-reading (most of them fortunately minor ;-)

line 19: "The scope is limited to job submission, job control, and
retrival.." ->   "The scope is limited to job submission, job control,
reservation management and retrival..."
line 100: act as execution -> act as an execution
line 206: mention JobTemplate
line 255: if possible i would add the following statement, it does not
change nothing but brings reader attention to important concept of the
DRM systems.

"It is worth to mention that the WALLCLOCK_TIME in most of the DRM
systems is not only a resource limit but also a key job attribute
taken into account in the scheduling process"

line 291: line falling behind the margin
line 364: missing "\"
line 382: Maybe we should clarify that te value should be eventually
normalized: e.g.:

"The load value MUST be always within the <0;1> range (inclusive). The
value 0 should indicate that machine is idling, while the 1 that all
computing units are used"

line 481: as the JobSubState is an opaque object then passing
"sub-state is not suported by the impl.." may simply lead to SEG FAULT
;-) so filtering using sub-state should be permitted if one known
which implementation is used.

line 513: "The accumulated CPU time" -> "The accumulated, over all
job's processes, CPU time" (just a proposition)

line 686: expressed by the expressed by -> expressed by


line 762: "being allowed on one machine" -> "being allowed to run"
(@see maxSlots)

line 863: a Uns.. -> an Unsup...

line 878: missing space after "support"

line 890: missing space after "reservation."
line 895: missing space after "machines."

line 1069: Should we state that is enough that session names must be
unique for tuple (DRMS,user)

line 1097: Should we explicitly mention when one can call the
destroySession ? If yes i would propose "only for not opened session".

line 1183: sessionName can be also generated by the implementation...

line 1374: what about job objects returned in the monitoring session?
which session should be referred then?

line 1384: maybe we should warn here that this operation might not be atomic.

footnote 39: "start and time" -> "start and end time"

line 1837: poznan -> poznan.pl


Cheers,
-- 
Mariusz