[Pgi-wg] [OGSA-BES-WG] OGF OGSA-BES - Requirements for an improved Basic Execution Service
andre at merzky.net
Thu Sep 15 13:43:13 CDT 2011
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
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."
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
IMHO be addressed in a separate document.
And no, I don't expect EGI to use my service implementation ;-)
Nothing is ever easy...
More information about the Pgi-wg