[Pgi-wg] Promised document

[Aleksandr Konstantinov]

On Friday 15 May 2009 16:54, Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
> Aleksandr,
> RNS is not a requirement. It shows up in my "GES Realization via Existing
> Specifications" as a means to meet the requirements. I personally think it
> is a good idea and allows us to work with an existing code base and access
> layer. Listing a directory of things is pretty common.

Looks like a good idea for me (personally). I think You should make one more logical step 
and suggest to drop BES. No kidding. As You explained usage of RNS diring last telecon
it can do anything BES does. One simply has to provide some data transmission
capability to trasfer bigger chunks of data to/from nodes (not sure about term) presented 
by RNS. And that could be same ByteIO proposed by You or even simpler - HTTP(S) which
is already used as underlying protocol of SOAP anyway.

Actally we are using similar approach in ARC (production version) except that it uses 
GridFTP (and hence TVFS) instead of RNS.

Concerning "work with an existing code" I'm not sure. I doubt many of participating 
projects have an implementation of RNS. And those developed probably won't be very
reusable in different environment. Do You have an implementation for libxml2?
On another hand AFAIR RNS is not a complex interface and wouldn't take much effort to 
implement.


A.K.



> 
> A
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Aleksandr Konstantinov
> > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:32 AM
> > To: pgi-wg at ogf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Promised document
> > 
> > On Friday 15 May 2009 13:10, David Wallom wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Can we first agree (on the list, possibly with a doodle vote) that the
> > > requirements described in Andrews document were accurate. At this first
> > > stage please ignore the implementation, just are the requirements
> > correct
> > > and if not what changes are required.
> > 
> > Is RNS requirement or implementation?
> > 
> > A.K.
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > > On 15/05/2009 09:19, "Moreno Marzolla" <moreno.marzolla at pd.infn.it>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > David Wallom wrote:
> > > >> Hi Moreno,
> > > >>
> > > >> I would consider that this is becoming a fundamental problem within
> > the
> > > >> group. When it was setup it was certainly the impression of those
> > that
> > > >> started off the discussions etc that it would be a profiling and
> > current
> > > >> standards extension effort rather than all new standards...
> > > >
> > > > As far as I'm concerned, I have always been very careful to talk about
> > > > "profiling and/or writing something new", as it was never said nor
> > > > suggested that profiling was absolutely the way to go.
> > > > I agree that this is a fundamental issue, and I'm concerned about any
> > > > real possibility to reach an agreement.
> > > >
> > > > Moreno.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pgi-wg mailing list
> > > Pgi-wg at ogf.org
> > > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pgi-wg mailing list
> > Pgi-wg at ogf.org
> > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
> 
> 
>