[GSM-WG] SRM (GSM) and OGF

[Jensen, J (Jens)]

Hi Paul.

These are very useful comments, and we would be happy to be working with
you on improving the specification.

I have now requested two 45 min sessions at the OGF where these issues
can be discussed (the deadline is today and I didn't hear anything from
Arie but he may be busy).  Paul if you are attending the OGF, I hope you
will attend - if not, we can discuss issues beforehand.

Many thanks,
--jens


Paul Millar wrote:
> Hi Jens, others in GSM and SRM-devel,
>
> Some comments as an interested outsider...
>
> On Wednesday 09 January 2008 14:11:22 Jensen, J (Jens) wrote:
>   
>> I would propose we start an activity to review the spec and document at
>> least the most obvious discrepancies.
>>
>> The aim is partly to ensure that someone new who picks up the standard
>> can start implementing an interoperable SRM.  Partly that we need to be
>> responsible standards maintainers, now that SRM is an OGF standard.  Of
>> course if there are no changes then so much the better, but it would be
>> good to be able to say so.
>>     
>
> The GridForge page for tracking comments could be used:
> 	
> http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/discussion/do/listTopics/projects.ggf-editor/discussion.rec_srm_interface_spec_v2_2
>
> although it isn't easy to navigate to this page from the GSM GridForge pages.
> (at least, I couldn't see how to do it :-)
>
> I think the SRM-2.2 specification as it is written (i.e., as a spec.), has 
> some areas it can be improved.  In general, I found the language too woolly 
> and it would benefit from some sharpening (see comment in above link).  Using 
> RFC 2119 vocabulary would be a good start, but the spec. really needs going 
> through point-by-point.
>
> Another point is a more precise description in terms of states.  There seens 
> to be an implicit assumption of objects having different states within 
> SRM-2.2 (for example, files being near- or on- line), but the interaction of 
> the API and the different object states could be better described.
>
> Perhaps describing these interactions in terms of state-transition diagrams 
> would help ensure that nothing is left vague.
>
> Just my 2c-worth.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul.
>