[Nmc-wg] Base doc

[Slawomir Trzaszczka]

Hi all,


On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 20:01 -0500, Jason Zurawski wrote:
> Hi Roman;
> 
> Thanks for the feedback, comments inline:
> 
> 
> > some first comments/observations:
> > 
> > - I think the structure of namespace could be explained
> 
> 
> The original thinking was the NM-WG document, "An Extensible Schema for 
> Network Measurement and Performance Data", would contain the entire 
> explanation of namespaces (the idea itself coming from another OGF WG). 
>     Any future documents from related projects (NMC, NML, others?) would 
> reference this and only note caveats to the original rule.  The NM-WG 
> doc is here:
> 
> https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15649?nav=1
> 
> And I think namespaces are in section 4.  Does everyone think this is 
> sufficient, or should we consider other options?
> 
> 
> > - example of status response in 4.1 does not explain too much (looks the 
> > same as earlier response example)
> 
> 
> Now that things are in SVN, could you suggest a more fitting example?
> 
> 
> > - in 4.3.2.6 the concept of key could be explained more (for me the key 
> > represents some bigger information structure; reasons: performance, 
> > simplicity)
> 
> 
> Good ideas, I will note these.
> 
> 
> > - in 4.3.2.7 the reference to "Characteristic" document is missing
> 
> 
> Good catch, I will add a real reference.
> 
> 
> > - I'm wondering whether we can say in 4.3.3 that the request with more 
> > data triggers includes logical independent sub-requests
> 
> 
> The concept of chaining is also something that Martin and I have 
> struggled to find a proper location.  Chaining is explained in sections 
> 5 and 6 of the above NM-WG document currently.  I think the basics 
> should remain in NM-WG since the concept of the chain is essential to 
> the definition of data and metadata.  We may be able to reference the 
> basic concept though to motivate some of the more unique cases.
> 
> 
> > - 4.4.1: typo "request schema"
> 
> 
> I will correct.
> 
> 
> > - I would remove parameter elements "supportedEventType" from all 
> > message examples. I understand that it's supported by the 
> > implementations but it's agreed to use eventType element
> 
> 
> I don't think this is a big deal, since these are just examples.  I can 
> remove them if we think it will cause confusion.
> 
> 
> > - I think we have to rebuild Result Code section and finish the 
> > discussion on new ideas proposed by Slawek and Jeff. That's very 
> > important and must be done.
> 
> 
> This would be the current venu to do so.  Has Slawek updated his 
> document based on the suggestions that were made before the holidays? 
> Perhaps he can send it again?

Yes,
file is in attachment

Regards,

Slawek

> 
> Thanks;
> 
> -jason
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nmc-wg mailing list
> Nmc-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
> 
-- 
+--------------------------------------------+
 Slawomir Trzaszczka                       
                                           
 Poznan Supercomputing & Networking Center 
+--------------------------------------------+
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: eventTypes.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 241768 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nmc-wg/attachments/20100112/66c27fe2/attachment-0001.pdf