[orep-wg] WS-ReplicaCatalog specification

[Peter Kunszt]

hi rob and ann,
 
without wanting to sound rude or out of place, please allow me
to tell you that in my opinion the current scope definition of 
the document and also the introduction is not suitable 
for a GGF standardization document.
 
it cannot be that a standard is tied to a very specific implementation
of a very specific product. a standard should be a just the pure
interface
definition with its semantics defined, so that every group that intends
to
implement the standard, can do so in a well-defined way. its scope has
to be addressing a well-defined set of requirements in a specific
manner,
and it also has to mention explicitly what it does not define, and how
it
relates to other efforts.
 
currently the document's first few pages read like an introduction to
a work plan for the 'WSRF-ification' of the globus RLS, not like the
intro
to a GGF standards doc.
 
just my 2c,
 
peter
 
ps. other than this immediate general one, i have also technical
comments - coming soon ;-)
 



________________________________

	From: owner-orep-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-orep-wg at ggf.org] On
Behalf Of Robert Schuler
	Sent: 05 August 2005 02:56
	To: orep-wg at ggf.org
	Cc: annc at isi.edu; Robert Schuler
	Subject: [orep-wg] WS-ReplicaCatalog specification
	
	

	Hello OREP WG members,

	 

	Ann and I would like to share with you a draft specification for
a WS-ReplicaCatalog interface. The intention is to define a WS-RF
interface for a Replica Catalog, similar in functionality to existing
replica catalogs (e.g., the RLS Local Replica Catalog service). As you
know, the earlier OREP specification treated replica information as
individual resources and was an extension of the WS-ServiceGroup
specification. While that approach lends itself to fine-grain
manipulation and inspection of replica location information, it lacks
the concept of "bulk" operations that are so important for scalability.
It is also more difficult to digest some of its concepts. In this new
specification, the interface should be conceptually similar to the
interface provided by existing replica catalog services (e.g., RLS LRC,
and others). We also expect that this interface will be complementary to
the earlier work on the OREP spec, though it does not depend on it in
any way.

	 

	If you find time to review it, we certainly would like to hear
your thoughts, suggestions, and comments.

	 

	Cheers,

	 

	rob

	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/orep-wg/attachments/20050805/dc0672f8/attachment.htm