Hi PGI team, in parallel to our technical discussions, I think it would be a great benefit to get statements on the WIKI as mentioned today in the TelCon about pro/contras:

-http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.pgi-wg/wiki/GES?_m es -sage=1242216401105

------Original Message----- -From: pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of -Morris Riedel -Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:11 PM -To: 'Andrew Grimshaw'; 'Steven Newhouse'; 'Etienne Urbah' -Cc: pgi-wg@ogf.org; edges-na3@mail.edges-grid.eu; lodygens@lal.in2p3.fr -Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] PGI Execution Service - Realization viaexistingspecifications - -Hey PGI team, - - - we are running in the pro/contra discussions again and again as it looks

-consuming our valuable time fosterings positions w/o clear understanding of the -bigger picture. - - -I suggest we clearly collect all statements related to pro/contra new /

-inside the following wiki page tables: - - -http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.pgi-wg/wiki/GES?_m es -sage=1242216401105 - - -Let's try to collect all statements and positions and have an objective whole view on -all of them together by filling out this page. - - -I hope this also supports the telcon so thanks for adding your views to

@Andrew: Clearly the history of the wiki (that I can't change in respond to "hopefully unintentially removed") points to no edits from your side - I gave you now all the permissions possible in GridForge - so if this problem was maybe related to this it should be gone now. If you like to provide your views - please feel free to add, I really think it's worth adding them to acknowledge different view points that might lead to a wise decision in this context. Just a suggestion, Morris like... old specs the tables.

- - -Your co-chair, -Morris - - ------------------------------------------------------------- -Morris Riedel -SW - Engineer -Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division Jülich Supercomputing Centre -(JSC) Forschungszentrum Juelich Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1 D - 52425 Juelich -Germany - -Email: m.riedel@fz-juelich.de -Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/JSCPeople/riedel -Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651 -Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656 - -Skype: MorrisRiedel - -"We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity" - -Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich -Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzende -des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe -Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender), Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. -Vorsitzender) - ->------Original Message----- ->-From: pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf ->Of -Andrew Grimshaw ->-Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 1:48 PM ->-To: 'Steven Newhouse'; '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 -viaexistingspecifications ->- ->-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 ->- ->- ->-_______________________________________________ ->-Pgi-wg mailing list ->-Pgi-wg@ogf.org ->-http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg