Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D5.4.3
Title: DJRA1.4.3 - Infrastructure Area Work Plan and Status Report Doc. identifier: EMI-DXXX-CDSREF-Title-vx.x
Author(s): L. Field Due date: 30/04/12

Identification of the reviewer
Name: Jedrzej Rybicki Affiliation: JUELICH EMI Activity/External project or Institute: NA3

Review date mm/dd/yyyy
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

I did some quick preliminary review (I just scanned through the
document). As usually Laurence did good work, the document is
well-written and clearly structured.

Few quick comments (in no particular order):
1) Title and page heading need to be fixed, might be oo issue though.
2) 3.2 section heading, second part is all uppercase.
3) few formating issues (sometimes the text is aligned to the right,
sometimes justified), I guess this will be fixed in the final version
4) 3.1 could be more specific with regard to future plans
5) 3.2 I have a problem in following the argumentation line, which says
(to my understanding) that a common interface is on a wish-list of
infrastructure providers but EMI cannot help... Who if not EMI? We have
all major grid software providers on board, if they come up with a
common solution the rest of the word has to adopt it.
My point is, EMI should either start this process of harmonization or
make sure that it is an active participant.
6) 3.7 references to CAR & StAR would be nice
7) 3.10 (implementation of simplification) I would move the section up
to become 3.9 and follow 3.8 (simplification plan). Or perhaps even
merge both sections
8) 3.13 reference to the evaluation document. Also short summary of the
results and evaluation criteria should be provided here.
9) 3.14 Infrastructure Area is (in my perception) partly responsible for
monitoring probes of *all* EMI components. Not necessary for their
implementation but for progress monitoring, am I right? I remember
Laurence starting "Taskforce" on monitoring and collecting list of
responsible people in Lund. I would expect you to provide an general
overview of the probes.
10) DNA1.32 X7 (Platform support) is missing. If I recall it correctly
it was part of you previous deliverable. It is also an important
activity of EMI to get broadest possible platform support.
11) 4, could you elaborate more here? What were the reasons for the
comparison, what are the results (summary). I am not asking for
duplicating the content of the report you referred to. But one shall
provide the reader with the information what can she expect in this
external report and why you mention that in the first place.
12) I have found no references to KPIs... what happen to them? Was there
a policy change in EMI? I would expect a short report on the current
status of the KPIs ane for each point in the workplan estimation of the
changes in KPIs.

Ok. those are my short notices done while reading. I will wait for the
final version of the deliverable. (Please note I will be on vacation
from 25th to 2nd May). 

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

Detailed comments on the content

*More detailed comments are available in the attached .otd file. *

N Page Observations and Replies Is Addressed?
1 7 "The agreed requirements will then be transformed in actions for JRA1". This is about the cloud requirements/strategies. I know that the process is more complicated than that. I would suggest to avoid such a commitment (for me it seems that there will be no additional cloud-related JRA1 actions in year 3). DNA1.3.3. do not mention them either. A probably Technical Director (PTB?) has something to say about that. Or is there really a path envisioned for NA3 to create JRA1 actions? Simple solution would to remove the sentence. Elaborating on this complicated issue is not advisable, and rephrasing would be hard.    
2 9 "renaming of APEL in EMI Accounting Client", this is again a bigger issue. There are discussions around (you are all aware of), whether there will be EMI products after the EMI project ends or not. Or perhaps all product should be renamed. I don't want to continue this discussion here, and certainly such decisions are not to be meet solely by PTs or JRA1.x. Thus I would suggest to avoid this delicate subject in the deliverable.    
3 9 "results are not statistically significant", if so: remove them. I see big danger of misinterpretation here e.g., suggesting that some components are more important within EMI.    
4   DNA1.3.3 mentions one new I objective which is "I11 Investigate the potential accounting problems due to co-deployment of multiple CEs at the same site (M28)" I don't know how stable DNA1.3.3 is but if there are such plans they should be included in the work plan.    

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.

-- JedrzejRybicki - 21-May-2012

Topic attachments
I Attachment History Action Size Date Who Comment
Unknown file formatodt EMI-DJRA1.4.3-Infrastructure_Area_Work_Plan-vjj.odt r1 manage 75.2 K 2012-05-21 - 18:45 JedrzejRybicki odt document with comments and tracked changes
Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r2 - 2012-05-21 - JedrzejRybicki
 
    • 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