
Hi Dejan and Steve, Yes, Steve's changes are fine by me. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) wrote:
Thanks Steve,
I will submit it as is (others, please note that PDF does not correspond to the Word document, read the Word document instead).
Hiro, I hope that the changes are fine with you and that it is ok that I submit it.
Thanks,
Dejan.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Loughran Sent: Monday, March 27, 2006 5:24 AM Cc: cddlm-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [cddlm] deploy API revisions
This is the updated document. As usual, the CVS image of this is the normative copy of the specification; what you are seeing here is are downstream artifacts of that gold image.
I've made less changes than hiro suggested, not because I dont agree with them, but because I dont think the changes should go through except in co-ordination with the other specifications. If we can do this, then yes, I am in favour of the changes.
A1, A2. Yes, there is duplication in the introductory commentary. However, the team agreed to put a consistent preamble across all the standards. I do not want to change mine to be inconsistent, unless we change all simulataneously. Accordingly, I have not applied any changes to that part of the document.
A2: Looking at the engineering costs of this I'm more reluctant to make an immediate change. I'd have to change the schema information across all docs including test documents, and it will be inconsistency across the different specs. We can do it, but it will require team-wide coordination.
An extra complexity is that GFD.58 doesnt define where other URIs should go, for example, MUWS capabilities. I have picked on http://www.gridforum.org/cddlm/deployapi/2005/02/capabilities/ portal for one of these. Similarly, Appendix B defines two
What I have done is declared in section 4.4.3.3 that all extra deployment options that begin with http://ggf.org/schemas/cddlm are reserved for the cddlm wg.
A3. Declared which chapters are normative vs informative.
A5:. removed "Compliant" near OGSA.
A6: marked the XSD as copyright 2004-2006. It didnt exist until 2004.
Again, these are all minor changes. They make no changes to the semantics of any part of the specification.
Dejan, Stuart, if you are happy with these, then post them to the site. I am now going to be absent for eight days, skiing in the Alps. No email, no voicemail.
-steve
-Steve