With one minor suggested change, I think that Michel's proposal is acceptable. The one exception is on page 3. The last paragraph before the box with the XML in it is too weak. The "must" in line 2 should be "MUST". IN the text placed into the actual DMI spec, I assume that the first sentence of this paragraph will start something like "If the underlying data transfer protocol could not be instantiated, the DMI implementation...".
I also wonder if the use of the idea that this fault is associated with instantiating the transfer protocol is correct. Is it the case that the error will always manifest itself when the DTI attempts to instantiate the transfer protocol? Are there cases where the error will only be detected when an attempt is made to move the first set of bytes?
I would also observe that this proposal is essentially the same as that which I proposed on 8 November, differing only in that the modified DEPRs are "MAY" and not "MUST".
Allen Luniewski
IBM WebSphere Cross Brand Services
IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
555 Bailey Ave.
San Jose, CA 95141
408-463-2255
408-930-1844 (mobile)
Michel Drescher <Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com>
Michel Drescher <Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com>
Sent by: ogsa-dmi-wg-bounces@ogf.org
11/29/2007 08:59 AM
|
|
Folks,
please find attached my proposal on how DMI could model the fault
communication for the DTI.
I deliberately did not fully write the proposal as a finished text
for the specification. I first wanted to make clear why I designed
the proposal as it is.
If we agree to go ahead with whatever solution, we then still can add
the solution to the spec, and bang our heads together on the words. :)
Cheers,
Michel
[attachment "DTI-Fault-Proposal.doc" deleted by Allen Luniewski/Almaden/IBM] [attachment "PGP.sig" deleted by Allen Luniewski/Almaden/IBM] --
ogsa-dmi-wg mailing list
ogsa-dmi-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-dmi-wg