[orep-wg] WS-ReplicaCatalog specification

Fri Aug 5 12:32:27 CDT 2005

Hi Peter,

Thank you for taking the time to respond, but did you carefully read the
document? I do not think your comments reflect the actual contents very
well - in my opinion. First, this is in no way presented as a "GGF
standardization document" which is made clear in the opening paragraph.
It states that the document is intended to "generate dialogue" and "for
review and discussion" through the GGF. It makes no mentioned that we
are submitting this document for immediate consideration for
standardization. We humbly seek to begin a discussion.

As for your explanation regarding what a standardization document should
contain, I hope you do not think we do not understand that already. When
I come across a document that does not match my expectation of a
particular format, I have two options: (1) I can assume that the person
does not know what they are doing, or (2) I can realize that perhaps
they are not intending the document to be of a particular type (e.g., a
standardization document). I would like to believe that in most
instances I choose to give others the benefit of the doubt.

In terms of your more substantive comment, I would like to suggest that
you take a closer look. We have been careful not to define anything that
is necessarily RLS-specific. So, as far as I can tell, there is nothing
to prevent others from implementing this specification. On the other
hand, at merely 25 pages, it is very terse and incomplete for a real
"standardization document", but we already knew that. It would have
seemed presumptuous on our part, if we were to submit a complete
specification. We have "shared" (as I wrote earlier, not "submitted") a
document with the OREP WG for the purpose of discussion, at a very early
stage in the interface's lifecycle. We are not in the business of
forcing our specifications on others, including our user community.

I hope this clarifies our intentions for this specification. If we
misled you in some way, please allow us to correct any misunderstanding.
We are still very interested in your thoughts and comments from a
technical perspective and would like to hear more.

Thank you,

rob

________________________________

From: Peter Kunszt [mailto:Peter.Kunszt at cern.ch] 
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 8:34 AM
To: Robert Schuler; orep-wg at ggf.org
Cc: Ann Chervenak
Subject: RE: [orep-wg] WS-ReplicaCatalog specification

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/20050805/14b46af8/attachment.html 