[tsc] [gfsg] Technical Strategy Document

[Andre Merzky]

I also appreciate the brevity and clarity of the definition.
I think that defining the term 'Grid Computing' in such a
short and concise manner is one of the tasks of OGF.

Also, but unrelated, I happen to agree with the definition.
The usage of Grid technologies within a single
administrative domain is thereby not excluded (just as many
programs use TCP for communication even if they are not
running distributed).  

Extending the Daves definition in a way that it covers all
possible use cases, and makes all potential users happy, is,
IMHO, impossible, and would weaken the definition.

One could, for example, say: the definition does not say
anything about data management / virtualization / web
services / APIs / protocols /...   But by mentioning one of
those terms, one would leave out 10 others.  The definition
Dave gives is concise, w/o limiting it to a small number of
use cases.

Sorry if that answer is somewhat long, but the definition
as-is is actually, IMHO, worth to go on the OGF flag... :-)

Cheers, Andre.


Quoting [Linesch, Mark] (Jan 26 2007):
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I re-reading the TS&R document, I have one additional comment that may
> or may not be controversial ... 
> 
> In the document, we start out Section 1.3 with a statement of vision
> "Distributed computing across mulitple administrative domains". Although
> I like the simplicity of this statement, I am a little concerned that it
> excludes "distributed computing within an existing domain" I believe our
> stakeholders want grid architectures and standards "both within and
> across mulitiple administrative domains". Mark
> 
> 
> From: Linesch, Mark 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:35 AM
> To: 'David Snelling'; GFSG GFSG; TSC
> Subject: RE: [gfsg] Technical Strategy Document
> 
> David,
> 
> Thanks for moving this document along and maturing the content and my
> thanks to the entire TSC for the hard work and thoughts!
> 
> Regarding immediate tactical feedback (Nits:-)
> 
> 1. All the page numbers are set to 18
> 2. 1.2 -  you still have the term "while section 4 we identify the
> current result of this process in the form of high value use cases and
> scenarios". I believe this should be "capabilities" which is the term I
> think we are now using 3. 1.3 - The last sentence "Our focus is on
> standards and tools to effectively build and utilize the last of these"
> is a little confusing... Is the "last of these "Grids built on dedicated
> resources ranging from blade servers in a corporate data center to
> tans-national collections of supercomputers" or does this statement only
> refer to "trans-national supercomputers". I would reword for clarity.
> 4. Section 3, in the paragraph below the picture, the word "to" needs to
> be included in the sentence "Each of these groups meets to capture
> requirements that are particular [to] that group.
> 5. Section 3, "range of actions and responses", there seem to be some
> redundancy here. Bullet 4 talks about "ignore as out of scope" (not
> great language) and bullet 10 has the same idea. Bullet 2 "start a new
> standards group" and bullet 6 "form a new standards working group" also
> overlap. I would reword bullet 7 to make it less "Enterprise-specific"
> and clearer. Possibly something like ... "Form a new Research or
> Community group to develop a best practice document that might offer an
> interim solution until a more standardized approach can be matured and
> adopted."
> 6. Section 4, Title .... The title is "High Priority Capabilities" but
> then you go on to explain that "no priority has been associated with the
> list" - seems inconsistent. Also the first sentence needs CAPs 7. I
> think you need to unify the "tables". Table 1 has Category/Capability,
> Table 2 has Capability but they are not organized by "Category" (except
> that our Areas are a type of Category :-). I would opt'd for changing
> table 2 to align with Category/Capability and loose the Area
> designation. This way you have a consistent table throughout showing (1)
> Category/Capability; (2) Category/Capability/OGF
> Specification/Status/Milestone; (3) Category/Capability/Group or Comment
> and Maturity level. I think this will simplify things a little.
> 
> Longer-term feedback for after the public comment period I think we need
> to bring into this document a little more of the broader context and
> landscape upon which we are operating. The notion that
> (1) we don't want to or have to do all the standards for distributed
> computing and so we collaborate extensively with other Standards
> Development organizations and leverage existing and well adopted
> standards extensively needs to be better articulated
> (2) we are no longer in a green field situation. Organizations around
> the world are building and operating grids today and thus our
> standardization efforts should be informed by both architecture and
> community practice. And ... we may want to state what our "architectural
> approach" or "principles" are for the reader in a future version
> (3) I would continue to like to see work done on relating
> Categories/Capabilities to Use Cases to enable the reader to make the
> connection to relevance. I know this is continuing to be discussed ... 
> (4) not to state the obvious, but our current gap analysis needs quite a
> bit of maturing :-)
> 
> Thanks again to the team. I think this is a reasonable start and I very
> much appreciate the hard work that it has taken by the team and
> contributors to reach this first milestone.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> Mark Linesch: Open Grid Forum (OGF): Hewlett Packard
> 281-514-0322 (Tel): 281-414-7082 (Cell) mark.linesch at hp.com :
> linesch at ogf.org
> 
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gfsg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:gfsg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of
> David Snelling
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:49 AM
> To: GFSG GFSG; TSC
> Subject: [gfsg] Technical Strategy Document
> 
> Folks,
> 
> This is now (I believe) ready for Public Comment. I have done as much as
> possible with the time and effort available (mine and other's).  
> The process we agreed to at the F2F is as follows:
> 
> 1) Between now and next Friday, this document is in "WG Last Call", with
> the combined forces of the GFSG and the TSC acting as the WG.
> 
> 2) Please for minor changes send text-only based suggestions in an email
> to me, but the document should be pretty clean now.
> 
> 3) Major suggestions for future work should be emailed to me for
> inclusion in the trackers for later versions.
> 
> 3) Major objections at your peril.
> 
> This version is changed tracked, except for the tables 1 and 3, which
> are all new.
> 
> Enjoy.
-- 
"So much time, so little to do..."  -- Garfield