DJRA1.1.1 Compute Area Work Plan and Status Report - Review Michel Drescher

Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: DJRA1.1.1
Title: Compute Area Workplan and Status Report Doc. identifier: EMI-DJRA1.1.1-v0.6
Author(s): ??? (not given in the doc metadata) Due date: ???

Identification of the reviewer
Name: Michel Drescher Affiliation: Technical Manager EMI Activity/External project or Institute: Stichting European Infrastructure (EGI)

Review date 29/09/2010
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's main purpose is to provide a description of the state of art, and work plans for the first year of the EMI project. However, parts of the document carry a tone of slightly nebulous ideas and an undercurrent of hope (e.g. "[...] and hopefully will also be finalized.", p. 20, "[...] it could be very useful [...]", p. 21). Those section carry the risk of lost effort for envisioned functionality not being useful, or other dependent work not being finalised, unless a risk mitigation plan provides alternative use of the spent effort. The document misses at least references to such risk mitigation plans.

Answer (by Massimo Sgaravatto): I tried to address those parts: as far as I can say they are now much more clear and it is much more clear what is the objective and the plan)

Reviewer's response (Michel Drescher): The document has improved a lot. It is a good read now.

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

Detailed comments on the content

N Page Section Observations and Replies Is Addressed?
1 6 1.4 The abbreviation "PT" should be explained as short for "Product Team". Yes
      Ok, done
2 6 1.4 The gLite infrastructure component "LB" should be explained (or taken out of the description, see below) Yes
      I don't fully understand this comment. Section 1.4 is simply the terminology (i.e. the list of acronyms)
3 11 3.3 Figure 1 uses fracture fonts that are very difficult to read, and may not suit a technical deliverable. Yes
      Ok: picture has been redone
4 11 3.3 The infrastructure component "LB" is very briefly mentioned, but not explained at all. Either LB has an important function in the process and deserves an explanation of its role, or it should be taken out of the figure and text completely. It otherwise just adds confusion to the document. Yes
      Ok: LB removed from text and picture
5 11 3.3 Last paragraph mentions that LCG-CE "is being is dismissed". The term is confusing in that it does not describe the process of dismissal, nor does the text indicate the impact on the project or existing installations of that component. It is very briefly mentioned on page 12. Same comments as for the "LB" component apply - be more detailed description of the implications, or better take it out of the figure and text. Yes
      I think it is now much more clear in both figure and text: LCG-CE is not part of EMI
6 18 4.1.1 The section describes the heart of the compute capability/service of an EMI-based production infrastructure. The text mentions that existing standards lack capabilities necessary for production use, but it does not state which capabilities are missing. A short-list of the shortcomings illustrates the existing gap and, at the same time, provides the justification for standardisation efforts in OGF. Yes
      I listed some reasons why the existing standards are not considered good enough
7 19 4.1.3 The last paragraph provides concise information about UNICORE's activities concerning ARGOS, giving slightly ambiguous information: On one hand, a clear statement pro Argus support is given. On the other hand, Argus will be evaluated in terms of purpose and scope against UNICORE's current XACML based policy framework. If Argus is (unconditionally?) supported, then the need for such evaluation is arguable. If indeed such evaluation is necessary, then a short description of the action plan for the possible outcomes concerning UNICORE and the impact on the EMI project as such should be given. Yes
      The section has been rephrased. I think it is not ambiguous anymore

-- MichelDrescher - 16-Nov-2010

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r8 < r7 < r6 < r5 < r4 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r8 - 2010-11-16 - MichelDrescherExternal
    • 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 & 2008-2021 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