Hi Team, Good news, the Deployment APIs are also in the public review period. Thanks, Dejan. -----Original Message----- From: sf-httpd@forge.gridforum.org [mailto:sf-httpd@forge.gridforum.org] On Behalf Of Sourceforge Tracker Monitor Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 8:01 AM To: dejan@hpl.hp.com Subject: [ggf-editor | Submit GGF Draft - 1558] CDDLM Deployment APIs Greg Newby changed 1558 on 2005-10-18 07:01:19 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=414&aid=1558&group _id=90 (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=414&aid=1558&grou p_id=90) Summary: CDDLM Deployment APIs Project: EDITOR Tracker: Submit GGF Draft Artifact ID: 1558 Category: Recommendations Track Group: Management Status: Public Comment Period Resolution: <None> Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Greg Newby Last Modified: 2005-10-18 07:01:19 Submitted By: Dejan Submit Date: * 2005-07-07 05:56:49 Assigned To: John Tollefsrud File(s): draft-ggf-cddlm-deploy-api2.doc, ggf-cddlm-deploy-api.doc Description: This document describes CDDLM Deployment APIs. The CDDLM framework needs a deployment API for callers to deploy services described in the component model languages. This API must support remote access for deployment, terminating existing deployed systems, and for probing their state. This document defines the WS-Resource Framework-based deployment API for performing such tasks. It is targeted at those who implement either end of the API. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Greg Newby (2005-10-18 07:01:19) (It will be due 60 days after it is publicly announced) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Greg Newby (2005-10-18 06:58:57) This is now ready for 60-day public comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: John Tollefsrud (2005-10-17 21:17:41) I've read the document and recommend that it proceed to public comment. Note, there is a cut/paste repeat of several lines of text at the bottom of p.2. John ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Greg Newby (2005-09-25 14:24:04) Thanks. This document is now in 15-day GFSG review prior to public comment. Because the GGF15 conference is next week, we will allow until October 18 for a GFSG decision. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Dejan (2005-09-16 16:02:54) We have adderssed all issues raised by the GGF editor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Greg Newby (2005-08-30 09:02:48) Thanks for this submission. I have several items I would like to be fixed or responded to before moving this document to the next phase of the review process. First is that the header states this is an informational track document (GWD-I), but the tracker has Recommendations track submitted. Which is the intent of the working group? For these other comments, use the template in the Editor tracker, or a recently published GGF document, as an example: Second, please fill in the compete information for the 13 Editor section. Third, "12 Security" should be "12 Security Considerations." Fourth, the references nearly all need a lot of work. References need to be complete: - author (or corporate author) - title and (if applicable) volume - publication location (for online sources, the publisher/organization's location) For online materials, they may only be cited in the References section if they are persistent documents - not to Web sites or other transient content. For citation fo something like a WG's homepage or organization, use an inline reference or footnote, for example, in text: "The Global Grid Forum (http://www.ggf.org)," instead of putting the hyperlink in the References section. I don't think *any* of the references are complete, and several are simply hyperlinks that don't belong in the References section. Here is the rule of thumb for references: you need to provide sufficient information so that a future reader (say, in 10 years) can use your reference to find the exact same document you used in your authoring. If it seems unlikely the same document will be available (for example, because a Web page will have changed), then this might be a better candidate for inline citation or a footnote. Fifth, the GGF logo, copyright statement and IP notice are misplaced (see the sample documents), and you don't need to include the logo. Sixth, page footers are missing except on the first page (they don't need to be on the first page, but should be on the other pages). Email address, also page number. Seventh, the Status and Abstract headings don't match the rest of the document, or the GGF's other samples. I'm sorry for this big list of changes. As you see, none of them are focused on the content -- it's all about the presentation & formatting, consistently with the GGF standards. I did read the content, too -- to me, this appears to be a well-written document, and presents valuable information. Once you have re-submitted with the above suggestions addressed, we'll continue to advance it through the editor pipeline as specified in GFD-C.1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- View the Submit GGF Draft : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=90&at id=414 (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=90&a tid=414) ________________________________________ Modify your monitoring preferences: https://forge.gridforum.org/monitoring/monitorPreference.php (https://forge.gridforum.org/monitoring/monitorPreference.php) Turn off monitoring for this Tracker: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?group_id=90&atid=414&aid=1558&func= monitor (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?group_id=90&atid=414&aid=1558&func =monitor)