[OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions

[Peter G. Lane]

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why certain decisions were made with respect to tracker 
resolution. The most verbose the descriptions seem to get are "assigned to so-and-so for 
clarification". There's no context, and since I've missed a few phone calls that dealt with 
objections I've had, I have no idea why the decisions were made. Could whoever is resolving these 
trackers kindly make an effort to include more context so people don't have to ask later why certain 
things are the way they are? I don't think it's appropriate to expect that everybody interested in 
BES should be able to attend every single telecon just to get information on tracker resolution. 
That's why Gridforge allows comments to be attached to trackers, IMHO. I'm not trying to be mean 
here. I just think we could do better from the "open process" point of view in explaining what we're 
doing and why.

That said, I have a couple of questions about tracker resolutions that. I'd be grateful if anybody 
attending the associated telecon could answer them.

1) What was the reason for keeping ContainedResourceAttributes and not including attributes like 
ContainedStatuses and ContainedActivityDocuments? Was there a concensus on why the problems 
associated with aggregation of activity attributes should be ignored?

2) Why are we still essentially advocating WS-Transfer's attribute model by having the 
GetAttributesDocument operation? In my opinion it is not necessary for minimal interop, and makes 
WS-Transfer's Get operation redundant. Is part of the problem that we haven't defined any interop 
standards yet?

Thanks!
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3804 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060902/d1e66414/attachment.bin