Thank you, Tiziana. I like the approach of splitting the material between the 1st Tier cases (the most mature ones) and the 2nd Tier developing ones. Hereafter my comments: ** Abstract and Introduction have the words "high-level but formal description". I hesitate to use the word formal (which could lead to believe that we use UML2 language or something). I would qualify it as "high-level, structured description" ... that's as far as we've gone IMO. ** I believe that the title "High-Throughput File Transport with Deadline" does not do justice to the text in 2.2. I propose to rename it "Large Data Streaming coordinated with Job Execution". The rationale for this change is that the former title does NOT justify <start quote>"the existence of a Guaranteed Data Rate Service assuring the requested bandwidth between two endpoints to its client by means of traffic differentiation techniques ... note that this service needs to be seamlessly available end-to-end.<end quote>. A deadline does not necessarily imply "a darn imminent deadline". Depending on how close the deadline is, one could use a delay-tolerant technique such as L7 store-and-forward without any end-to-end requirement and with multiple hops to (say) exploit large pipes available at slightly different times ... as long as the final deadline it's being met, and I get notification of this deadline either being met or failed (By way of analogy, real-time engineers go to great lengths to distinguish between real-time and real-fast requirements ... 2.2 talks about real-fast while its title hints real-time, to me at least). As well, my proposed title wants to emphasize the coordination with job execution, which I thought to be a distinguishing aspect of this use case. ** In 2.3.1, the SE acronym is introduced without explanation. The paragraphs featuring the Data Scheduler architectture appear abruptly without any background context and no understanding of how they might fit with the subsequent HEP Use Cases (also, the two 1-2-3 numbered lists back to back are confusing). I propose to remove the text starting with "These scenarios involve different types of file transfer, specifically" until the end of 2.3.1, and consider it for insertion after 2.3.5 ... though we should make sure first that it passes the Use Case eligibility test (it's all about the WHAT rather than the HOW). ** Prior to enter public comment, we need to expand the set of so-called path-oriented use cases. At GlobusWorld 05, I was awestruck by the work that Rolls Royce and UK researchers are doing to harvest sensor data from in-flight jet engines and to correlate such data for early diagnosis of malfunctions. This would make for a superb use case with mixed wireline, wireless, mobility, and intermittent connectivity scenarios. I will approach these researchers ... with some luck they are already part of the GHPN community and will read these lines of mine. ** In 3.1.4, the CE and SE acronyms need to be expanded (GGF final documents have a very diverse audience, we cannot assume prior knowledge). ** With regard to editorial nits ... The font type/size and the lack of line breaks between paragraphs had my eyes cross over and lines blur several times. I also recommend page breaks before level 1 Headings (possibly even before level 2 Headings). Just too much ink on a single sheet of paper! ** Lastly, I'd like to preserve the association between the Use Cases and the domain experts who provided input. Rather than enumerating authors after Section 5, I recommend writing "Input provided by ..." next to either level 1 or level 2 headings. This reflects the high degree of specialization that these use cases bring to bear. that's all for now -franco On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 17:48:44 +0100, Tiziana Ferrari <tiziana.ferrari@cnaf.infn.it> wrote:
Dear all, an update on the status of the "Grid network services use cases" draft.
I have done some final editing work, reformatted the text according to the standard, added some missing information. With regards to the list of use cases, the latest version of the draft only contains the use cases that reached a mature state and went through a number of revision cycles. The other good ones are now part of a companion draft.
The purpose is to push the mature use cases forward and possibly put the draft in public comment soon.
You can find the latest version of the draft and the companion document (draft part II) under the GHPN "current drafts" page.
Regards, Tiziana
******************************************** Tiziana Ferrari Tiziana.Ferrari@cnaf.infn.it Italian National Inst. for Nuclear Physics / CNAF
v.le Berti Pichat 6/2, 40127 BOLOGNA, ITALY tel: +39.051.6092.759 fax:+39.051.6092.746 http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~ferrari ********************************************