Proposal 3 seems to be the favorite from the pS-dev mailing list. I like it too, but have the following comments/concerns: - The structure is a bit more rigid than the others, e.g. this is something that we (perfsonar/nmc) would set in stone instead of our normal 'living document' approach. This is not a bad thing, but there is a bit more wiggle room in the other approaches; a developer could carve out new space under /ma or similar for new service types without needing to upset the specification. I think the approach in proposal 3 would force compatibility quickly, but it also puts a lot of pressure to 'get it right' the first time. This group should carefully consider the categories and try to anticipate all of the needs as we make the recommendation. - Jeff/Roman/Myself had started a mini discussion on the merits of clients needing vs wanting to know more about an error, e.g. an error is an error regardless of where it comes from (an mp or an ma). I am still not completely convinced this is always be the case, I think knowledge regarding the service type in particular is valuable. The compromise here is was to introduce parameters to the result code message to convey this information making smart and dumb clients happy. - The document should explain that the eventTypes are set in the stone, and a default message should be described for each as well. It seems reasonable to allows services to modify this message if desired, as long as the eventTypes are respected. Thanks; -jason
Thanks Slawomir.
It would be great if people could either respond to this thread with their opinions on the proposed solutions, or be on the call/VC so we can come to some resolution on this topic.
thanks, jeff
On Jan 12, 2010, at 2:58 AM, Slawomir Trzaszczka wrote:
Hi all,
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 20:01 -0500, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
Thanks for the feedback, comments inline:
some first comments/observations:
- I think the structure of namespace could be explained
The original thinking was the NM-WG document, "An Extensible Schema for Network Measurement and Performance Data", would contain the entire explanation of namespaces (the idea itself coming from another OGF WG). Any future documents from related projects (NMC, NML, others?) would reference this and only note caveats to the original rule. The NM-WG doc is here:
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15649?nav=1
And I think namespaces are in section 4. Does everyone think this is sufficient, or should we consider other options?
- example of status response in 4.1 does not explain too much (looks the same as earlier response example)
Now that things are in SVN, could you suggest a more fitting example?
- in 4.3.2.6 the concept of key could be explained more (for me the key represents some bigger information structure; reasons: performance, simplicity)
Good ideas, I will note these.
- in 4.3.2.7 the reference to "Characteristic" document is missing
Good catch, I will add a real reference.
- I'm wondering whether we can say in 4.3.3 that the request with more data triggers includes logical independent sub-requests
The concept of chaining is also something that Martin and I have struggled to find a proper location. Chaining is explained in sections 5 and 6 of the above NM-WG document currently. I think the basics should remain in NM-WG since the concept of the chain is essential to the definition of data and metadata. We may be able to reference the basic concept though to motivate some of the more unique cases.
- 4.4.1: typo "request schema"
I will correct.
- I would remove parameter elements "supportedEventType" from all message examples. I understand that it's supported by the implementations but it's agreed to use eventType element
I don't think this is a big deal, since these are just examples. I can remove them if we think it will cause confusion.
- I think we have to rebuild Result Code section and finish the discussion on new ideas proposed by Slawek and Jeff. That's very important and must be done.
This would be the current venu to do so. Has Slawek updated his document based on the suggestions that were made before the holidays? Perhaps he can send it again?
Yes, file is in attachment
Regards,
Slawek