SA1 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: DJRA1.4.1
Title: DJRA1.4.1 - Infrastructure Area Work Plan and Status Report Doc. identifier: EMI_DJRA1.4.1_draft_v3.doc
Author(s): Laurence Field Due date: __

Identification of the reviewer
Name: Bjorn Hagemeier Affiliation: JUELICH EMI Activity/External project or Institute: JRA1

Review date 2010-01-15
Author(s) revision date 2010-08-16
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

Attach the reviewed document to the deliverable page, put here a link: Reviewed document

General comments

  • Generally a good read with not too much distracting content.
  • You sometimes mention GLUE 2.0.6, sometimes just 2.0. Which is the correct one? Are the really different?
  • I'm not too happy with the formatting of heading 2 headings as all capital letters.

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

N Page Section Observations Is Addressed?
1 5/6 1.6 Terminology Order acronyms alphabetically; Remove empty third column; Fill emtpy lines y (ok -- BjoernHagemeier - 04-Nov-2010)
2 10 3.1.3.2 Classic Infoindex (EGIIS) EGIIS should be explained here. And alos in the acronyms (empty line). Same for slapd. y (slapd still missing, although it's a standard component -- BjoernHagemeier - 04-Nov-2010)
3 10 3.1.5 CIP Avoid linebreak after (UAS y (only in ooffice, so please, ignore -- BjoernHagemeier - 04-Nov-2010)
4 11 3.3 Accounting "publish to an external source", I think one can only publish TO a "sink", maybe rephrase y (ok -- BjoernHagemeier - 04-Nov-2010)
5 11 3.3.1 CPU usage only? n, This only addresses CPU account, storage will come later
6 12 3.5 Is configuration data really dynamic? n, configuration can change during the lifetime of a service
7 13 4.1.1 Has the September 2010 due date been met? Is it still valid? n, This document was due in July so this was correct at the time of writing and is still valid. The delay in the document just means that it has already been done.
8 15 4.1.5 I have serious doubts that better support for pilot jobs is within the objectives of EMI. Are they even officially supported in gLite? Similar for CREAM jobs being among EMI objectives. n, This may be a feature of the WMS but I am not sure. This is in regard to a feature of the L&B so is valid
9 15 4.2.1 APEL probes for Nagios seem to be a monitoring issue rather than accounting. n, This is correct but providing monitoring for service is an EMI task and is correctly done by the APEL PT.

I'M happy with the response to my comments. -- BjoernHagemeier - 04-Nov-2010

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

-- FloridaEstrella - 14-Oct-2010

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r5 < r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r5 - 2010-11-04 - BjornHagemeierExCern
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    EMI All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright & 2008-2020 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback