JRA1/SA1 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D5.4.2
Title: DJRA1.4.2 - Infrastructure Area Work Plan and Status Report Doc. identifier: EMI-DXXX-CDSREF-Title-vx.x
Author(s): L. Field Due date: __

Identification of the reviewer
Name: Riccardo Zappi Affiliation: INFN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: JRA1/SA1

Review date 05/23/2011
Author(s) revision date mm/dd/yyyy
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

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

General comments

  • The document is without page numbers.
    • LF: Added page numbers
  • Some references are without protocol schema.
    • Done
  • There are a lot of sub-task deadlines on M13 and M13 is very close.
    • In particular, about 4.2 and 4.3 "Messaging investigation ...", there is the first subtask (ID1) with deadline M12, and three/four subsequent subtasks (ID2,ID3,ID4) with deadline on M13 and they are depending on task ID1. I know that it is a high-risk objective, but it seems missed by design.
    • LF: This is the consiquence of having a release cycles, preperation has to be done at the beginning and delivery at the end.

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 and Replies Is Addressed?
1 ?? 2

Executive Summary: - The sentence "it is not even sure if such an interface is required" seems not be compliant with one of the main objective (obj.2 ) of EMI. (RZ)

LF: This is intended and why it is stated in the executive summary. I wish to raise this point in the document.

no  
2 ?? 3.5.2

"The original authentication model proved too difficult to implement ...". It could be useful some details about the analysis of pro and cons of the original authn (which?). (RZ)

LF: Have removed the sentence as it is not required

yes  
3 ?? 3.7

There is a new line within the same sentence. ("task force \r\n document") (RZ)

LF: Done

yes  
4 ?? 4.4

Missing the reference to the document submitted (and endorsed) to the PTB (RZ)

LF: Added reference

yes  
5 ?? 4.4.4

There is a double "the the" in the first line (RZ)

LF: the the => that the

yes  
6 ?? 4.4.4

The risks seem to be repeated (e.g."fit for purpose") in the section. Moreover, I think the risk of investing effort in design and in an unproven approach can be mitigated by following the document already submitted to the PTB (as stated at the beginning of section 4.4). (RZ)

LF: Have remove the repetition.

yes  
7 ?? 4.12.5

The risks seem to coincide with the objective. A different description may be more effective.(RZ)

LF: The objective is to implement. The risk is that there is no standard interfaces which we can implement

no  
8          
9          

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 - 06-May-2011

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r4 - 2011-05-24 - LaurenceField
 
    • 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.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback