SA1 Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: EMI-1 Release Development Plans
Title: EMI-1 Release Development Plans Doc. identifier: 2010-10-31-EMI1-DevPlans_v4.doc
Author(s): Morris Riedel Due date: __

Identification of the reviewer
Name: Balazs Konya Affiliation: LU EMI Activity/External project or Institute: TD

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

BK 25/11/11:


According to my interpretation, the purpose of the reviewed document is to inform the interested technical audience about the coming EMI-1 release. It's a kind of "pre-release" announcement that describes what the key features of the EMI-I release will be, what are the main developments taking place, what is EMI-I about.

The current document unfortunately fails to achieve this goal. It is not an informative document, it instead reads as a strange mixture of everything, at some parts it resembles as "EU proposal" with the usual "bla-bla-bla", some other section looks like a "beginners guide to distributed computing" and there are parts that could serve as "OGF 101".

When it comes to actual content, features, development news for EMI-I components, the document is very shallow. On the other hand, it is too verbose when it comes to general bla-bla-bla (see e.g. the lengthy Section 1 which has an extremely small information density).

However, the biggest problem of the document are not the above: the document is bad because instead of clarifying what EMI-I will be about, it mixes everything with everything. The document gives false impressions and creates confusion around EMI, EMI-I.

Without going into the details, just a couple of examples:

- Page 5, Feature table: This table nicely reflect the confusing nature of the document. The list of EMI-I features is a very strange selection. are these new features of EMI-I? Or are these the key features, including those existing ones that were not developed for EMI-I? Unclear what is being added as new and what was already there. Why is glue1.3 listed at all? Then, if glue1.3 publishing is there, why isnt' there a glue1.3 retrieval? Or a Nordugrid info publishing. ARC already publishes glue1.3 info (missed). This table can hurt EMI. Then, the "selected" components, why are these in the table? why does ARC* client and UCC client appear under "compute elements" block? What is a "Unicore" component? why is there "other" component category? This table, when it comes to component names, is not in sync with DNA1.3.1

- page 6 2.1 "Harmonized components" section gives a false impression as if EMI-I would come only with the listed few components.

- page 11, Section 2.2 "adopted standards .. for component development"

This is a rather useless section. It briefly describes 5 standards (BES, GLUE2, SAML, SRM, NFS) without linking them to any EMI-I component development. The section does not specify how these stds are implemented or used, what is their role in EMI development. It is just an empty bla-bla.. For example, why should a development plan come with a table of standards such as the one in page 11? That table tells us that e.g. BES is a compute standard developed by OGF. Then what?

- The document mentions BES, there is a section devoted to it. This is misleading, it looks as if EMI-I development would focuses on BES implementation while this is not the case at all. BES is not part of EMI development.

Summary: I am strongly against releasing the document to the general public in its current form.

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 xx x.y Sequence of comments and replies separated by twiki signature and date    

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 - 26-Nov-2010

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r1 - 2010-11-26 - 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