NA1 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D2.4.2
Title: DNA2.4.2 - Exploitation and Sustainability Plan Doc. identifier: EMI_DNA2.4.2_v0.4.doc
Author(s): P. Stefan Due date: 190411

Identification of the reviewer
Name: F. Estrella Affiliation: CERN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: NA1

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

My comments re your DNA242 ToC v0.4 :

As DNA242 is an update of DNA241, I would expect the DNA241 Exploitation Roadmap, Exploitable Items, Sustainability Roadmap, Sustainability Drivers and Implementation Scenarios reviewed and assessed in DNA242. These may fall under Status Report Chapter(s).

Enhancements and deviations (including justification) from these plans should also be included, either in the Executive Summary or another chapter.

I would expect to see the Year 2 Exploitation and Sustainability Workplan/Roadmap, clearly separated from the Year 1 Status Report.

Perhaps these points are addressed within the deliverable; the ToC however does not clearly reflect it.

Section 3.1 - why is dCache not included?

I hope my comments are reasonable. I have based these on the procedure for periodically updated deliverables .

-- FloridaEstrella - 19-Apr-2011

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 - - Would it be possible to replace first person, eg we, with third person?    
2 5 1.1 Relate the new/revised definitions of E(Exploitation) and S(Sustainability) with those used in DNA241    
3 5 1.1 Enhancements and deviations (including justification) from DNA241 plans should also be included, either in the Executive Summary or another chapter    
4 14 3.1.4 Suggest to rephrase beginning of 2nd paragraph, as it may imply UMD dictates what goes into EMI.
Is 'Works with UMD' with EGI? If yes, we do not have to discuss EGI strategy here.
5   3.1.1-3.1.4 What is missing is E potential of EMI, as a single distribution in extending user base, in addition to the exploitation potential of individial mw    
6 14   EGI SLA signed April 2011, eScienceTalk not yet signed, Mathychore suspended; missing SHIWA, EDGI    
7 14 3.2 IMPORTANT: The first year results should clearly describe work done wrt DNA241 E and S plans, in particular with the Exploitatable Items and Sustainability Drivers    
8 16 4.1 Try to avoid making statements about EGI eg 'It is very unlikely that any industrial partner can use the EGI grid as it is now strongly tuned to the specific needs of the High Energy Physics community.'
There are a number of EGI references throughout the document which could be removed
9 16 4.2 Section covers maintenance and dev costs; distingush/separate if possible    
10 16 4.2 "The maintenance cost therefore has to be distributed over component developers and user communities."
This is a bold statement which requires further elaboration.
11 17 4.3 EMI short/medium/long to reduce maintenance costs via commercial provisioning    
12 18 4.4 "The Consortium Agreement also defines access rules to background and foreground; enforcement of the rules is the responsibility of the Project Director"
Can you point where this is mentioned in the CA?
13 18 4.4 Should include licensing issues in EMI 1 eg dCache; mitigation ?    
14 18, 27 4.5, 5.1.2 three mw-> four mw    
15 19 4.6 Expand "EMI tools are shown to be fully compatible with this approach." You have a long parag about trust federation and only 1 line about EMI. Talk about relevant Security Area activities in Y1 and future plans    
16 19 4.6 Expand "Investigating possibilities and requirements of cloud computing is an integral part of the EMI work plan." You have a long parag about clouds and only 1 line about EMI. Talk about relevant Clouds and Virt TF activities in Y1 and future plans    
17 19 4.7 "We propose possible ways for exploitation and maintenance model that we believe to be the best for each product."
What is the basis / rationale for the proposals given
18 19 4.7 CRITICAL: The table implies all components are maintained on best effort; all components follow best effort sustainability model. Best effort is the baseline scenario, one concludes from the table that we do not have any product exploitation and sustainability plans    
18 24 4.8 CRITICAL: Lacking critical analysis of the status of exploitable items at the end of Y1    
19   3.2-4.8 Confusing context - two first year results 3.2 and 4.8; Missing first year results for sustainability    
20 28 5.2 CRITICAL: Action items should be extended or another chapter created for Year 2 E and S Workplan/Roadmap with clear Exploitable Items and Sustainability Drivers. E and S should be clearly separated.    
21 16 4 Chapter limited to sw product. What about other Exploitable Items (Products, Methods) identified in DNA241    
22 27 5.1.1 "ARC middleware and its key dependencies have been ported to Microsoft Windows and MacOS X platforms"
Revise text if porting involves subset of ARC mw
Include gLite to Windows porting activities as well
23 28 5.1.2 "In future, a more comprehensive coordination among these collaborations will follow."
Describe concrete Y2 plans towards this goal.
24 28 5.1.3 "Investigations of the possible markets, target users and licensing models have started already and will be further explored during the EMI project lifetime."
Describe concrete Y2 plans towards this goal.
25 30 6 Update Conclusions to take into account revised text    

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.

Initial responses to the reviewers:

N Response
1 Ok.
2 Reference made.
3 No deviations compared to Y1 plans
4 Rewritten to include more correct statements.
5 Handled in the text.
6 Diana sends her comments on it.
7 The document is restructured and rephrased accordingly.
8 Cited sentence rephrased. EGI references should not be removed as it is EMI's largest customer.
9 In practical sense there are no development costs in EMI as it is a harmonization project. No new features are permitted. This is explained in the corresponding intro.
10 Sentence removed, statement made unambiguous.
11 Grid software is primarily not designed for commercial use. The real values of the grid, i.e. federating resource providers, has am unaddressed application space in the commercial world.
12 CA Article 17 defines access rights (joint ownership), and Contract Annex I in Section B3.2, page 138 says literally "The IP management procedures and rules will be detailed in the Consortium Agreement, and will be taken care of by the Project Director as part of the NA1 management responsibilities."
13 Licensing has a dedicated section. The weird licensing of dcache, i.e. a mixtrure of free and non-free components, has been inherited. We cannot tackle this in EMI1.
14 Ok.
15 Updated.
16 Updated.
17 Sentence eliminated and the context refined.
18 we must distinguish between in-EMI and post-EMI plans. Currently all the product are planned to be maintained as best effort. As it will turn out that any of them is further developed supported by some funding, the table will be updated. Y2 action added.
18 Updated, chapter refined.
19 Updated, chapter refined.
20 Separated chapter was created at the end of the doc with divided E and S subsections.
21 Some additional methodology exploitation items have been added into chapter 3.
22 In principle, all ARC code is ported to Windows and Mac OS (it is the same code as used on Linux), only not tested or certified, as EMI does not support these systems. I don't know anything about gLite on Windows - perhaps the Java bits do work on Windows as well. I do believe UNICORE and dCache tools could also work on Windows, as it is all Java.
23 Sentence removed, context refined.
24 Plans refined.
25 Ok.

-- FloridaEstrella - 19-Apr-2011

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r10 < r9 < r8 < r7 < r6 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r10 - 2011-05-27 - unknown
    • 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