All, The standard is the standard. That said what I was trying to point out was 1) That with minor updates to the BES spec, say to a 1.1 version we could accommodate many of the requirements in the GES document 2) That in fact the authors of the BES anticipated many of these same issues but that they were weeded out. As another note since it was perhaps not clear. I was NOT suggesting that sub-states become part of a new BES 1.1 specification - that "pending" perhaps should, and that we PROFILE the substates. Talk to you all in 130 minutes. A
-----Original Message----- From: Steven Newhouse [mailto:Steven.Newhouse@cern.ch] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 7:08 AM To: Etienne Urbah; Andrew GRIMSHAW Cc: pgi-wg@ogf.org; edges-na3@mail.edges-grid.eu; lodygens@lal.in2p3.fr Subject: RE: [Pgi-wg] PGI Execution Service - Realization via existingspecifications
- For BES, official recommendation GDF.108 does NOT contain the 'Running:Stage-in' and 'Running:Stage-out' states.
So we have to decide which basis we take for BES :
- Either OFFICIAL recommendation GDF.108, which I suppose is the one for which you mention existing implementations.
This should be the basis for any further work. Andrew circulated earlier versions just to show you relevant functions that were discussed that did not make it into the final version.
Steven