[Pgi-wg] [OGSA-BES-WG] OGF OGSA-BES - Requirements for an improved Basic Execution Service

[Andre Merzky]

Hi Etienne, all,

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Etienne URBAH <urbah at lal.in2p3.fr> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15/09/2011 13:00, Bernd Schuller wrote:
>>
>> In many cases it was not clear to me whether you talk about the BES
>> interface specification, or about the way a BES instance should be
>> deployed and operated. It would be good to remove the operational and
>> deployment concerns, so that only the specification parts remain.
>>
>> 2.4 Collaboration with other services
>>
>> While this is important for interoperability, it is unimportant
>> for the specification of a BES. The BES spec should NOT try to specify
>> all the interaction with the rest of the world. This is the task of a
>> "grid architecture specification" like OGSA.
>
>  My document is NOT targeted only to the specification of the BES Client
> interface, but to the clear and consistent description of BES context and
> functional + operational requirements which are really necessary for
> interoperability.

I would like to put forward a motion:

  "The discussion about BES interface specification should be separated
   from the discussion about interoperation of BES services."

Motivation:

Both discussions are important and necessary to have.  Discussing both
topics at once, however, will convolute the BES interface specification,
and will delay overall progress.  I do not mean that interoperation can
only be discussed after the BES interface spec is finished, not at all -
but each argument should clearly marked as belonging to *either*
discussion, not both.

Some more comments inlined...


>> Specifically, the interactions with security, monitoring, accounting and
>> logging framework are OPERATIONAL concerns that MUST NOT be a mandatory
>> part of a BES specification.
>
>  FAILURE of practical operations is often caused by LACK of early care about
> operational concerns during specification phase.  As GIN-GC has proven and
> documented, this is even more true for interoperability on the field (as
> opposed to theoretical interoperability at the WSDL level).
>
>  I confirm that care about operational concerns is REQUIRED for real
> operations and for practical interoperability on the field.  Although
> operational concerns are NOT part of the BES Client interface, they are
> REQUIRED for the overall specifications of BES in its context.

"REQUIRED for the overall specifications of BES" - I assume that this does
*not* mean the BES Service Interface specification (which I think you refer
to as 'BES client interface', as it is consumed by a non-service / client)?


>  In the text, I have stressed that the document DOES take into account
> operational concerns.

'the document' - I assume you mean the present requirement document?  If so,
I agree - it is useful to capture operational requirements.  I also agree
with Bernd though, that those should not directly influence the BES service
interface specification, but rather are a separate concern.

You cannot foresee the requirements of all implementations, nor the boundary
conditions of all deployments - adding operational features to the BES Service
interface specification *will* limit its applicability.  Thus, those
issues must
IMHO be addressed in a separate document.

And no, I don't expect EGI to use my service implementation ;-)


My $0.02,

  Andre.


-- 
Nothing is ever easy...