[Nmc-wg] Base doc

[Jeff W.Boote]

Thanks Slawomir.

It would be great if people could either respond to this thread with  
their opinions on the proposed solutions, or be on the call/VC so we  
can come to some resolution on this topic.

thanks,
jeff

On Jan 12, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Slawomir Trzaszczka wrote:

> 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
> +--------------------------------------------+
> <eventTypes.pdf>_______________________________________________
> Nmc-wg mailing list
> Nmc-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg