Hi Karl, Last thread, I promise! On the support for signed agreements, the extensibility point you have provided is sufficient. But, I'm worried that if the only thing in the spec is this extensibility point, then no-one will ever implement the signed agreement stuff. (I note that the signing stuff isn't domain specific; it could be supported regardless of the stuff that is being agreed.) I'd like to at least see some text showing how this could be supported. Does this belong in the specification, though? Could some words be added to the job submission example in the spec, when it is being revised, stating what might happen with signing? I just feel that if there's nothing in the spec then I'll be almost back to square one. I won't be able to get any implementation to sign stuff, because the spec doesn't say how this should be done if it is supported. I'll have to go and write a bunch of stuff myself, and won't get any real interoperability. Jon. On Mar 31, 2005, at 1:23 AM, Karl Czajkowski wrote:
Jim has kindly posted version 12 of the draft, including comments and revisions by me. The comments emphasize my concerns about the existing presentation and content of some sections.
The revisions attempt to add the extensibility needed for Jon's signature problem (without actually defining any signature-related syntax) and the "async" interfaces. I also removed the Terminate operation. I am sure there are presentation problems and inconsistencies, but hopefully this is a more concrete basis for further discussion of these proposed changes.
Please ignore the appendix entirely. The main sections are intended to be normative and the appendix is unknown older content that I did not touch.
karl
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS- AgreementSpecificationDraft.doc/en/12
-- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@univa.com