Jon, are you really recommending that the StAR is finalised in OGF as is? https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6532?nav=1 Shouldn't we produce a version that takes on board the comments received and agreed? In particular - SITE name - Allocated Space - Time Period If we just take these comments back into EMI and implement them there then we are publishing something in OGF that no-one will ever implement. Or worse, someone might implement it and thus be distinct from EMI. When approaching other storage teams to implement something it would be better if what EMI is going to do is documented somewhere standard. Pushing this back into URv2 will effectively open up all the discussions again with no record of what we agreed. Surely much better to record what we have agreed so far and then have it as a recorded input into URv2. Regards, John -- Scanned by iCritical.
Hi John, On 3. juli 2012, at 10:30, <john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk> <john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
Jon, are you really recommending that the StAR is finalised in OGF as is?
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6532?nav=1
Shouldn't we produce a version that takes on board the comments received and agreed? In particular
- SITE name - Allocated Space - Time Period
If we just take these comments back into EMI and implement them there then we are publishing something in OGF that no-one will ever implement. Or worse, someone might implement it and thus be distinct from EMI. When approaching other storage teams to implement something it would be better if what EMI is going to do is documented somewhere standard.
Pushing this back into URv2 will effectively open up all the discussions again with no record of what we agreed. Surely much better to record what we have agreed so far and then have it as a recorded input into URv2.
I thought that was the plan, but I guess I've misunderstood then. My idea was that the StAR document is an input from EMI for the URv2 work and that URv2 is what will be used. EMI will implement StAR but needs to change it when URv2 comes. I mean, within OGF StAR is just an informational document, not a standard. But when you put it this way I guess it's cleaner to change StAR within EMI and upload the new version before final review. cheers, Jon
Updated https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6532?nav=1 now, so the final review won't start until StAR is updated. cheers, Jon On 3. juli 2012, at 11:20, Jon Kerr Nilsen wrote:
Hi John,
On 3. juli 2012, at 10:30, <john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk> <john.gordon@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
Jon, are you really recommending that the StAR is finalised in OGF as is?
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/artf6532?nav=1
Shouldn't we produce a version that takes on board the comments received and agreed? In particular
- SITE name - Allocated Space - Time Period
If we just take these comments back into EMI and implement them there then we are publishing something in OGF that no-one will ever implement. Or worse, someone might implement it and thus be distinct from EMI. When approaching other storage teams to implement something it would be better if what EMI is going to do is documented somewhere standard.
Pushing this back into URv2 will effectively open up all the discussions again with no record of what we agreed. Surely much better to record what we have agreed so far and then have it as a recorded input into URv2.
I thought that was the plan, but I guess I've misunderstood then. My idea was that the StAR document is an input from EMI for the URv2 work and that URv2 is what will be used. EMI will implement StAR but needs to change it when URv2 comes. I mean, within OGF StAR is just an informational document, not a standard.
But when you put it this way I guess it's cleaner to change StAR within EMI and upload the new version before final review.
cheers, Jon
-- ur-wg mailing list ur-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
participants (2)
-
john.gordon＠stfc.ac.uk -
Jon Kerr Nilsen