SourceForge : Post

Project: Editor Discussion > REC:OGSA Basic Execution Service v 1.0 > Some suggestions on a very good draft > List of Posts

Forum Topic - Some suggestions on a very good draft: (2 Items)

View: as

Update

Blair Dillaway

05/01/2007 4:53 PM

post5812

Some suggestions on a very good draft

I think this is a very good specification. It is an important area where we need standards for interoperability. I
applaud the authors for having created a very comprehensive and understandable document.

I have a few minor comments on the current draft:

1) The draft has a numbering problem. On page 17 the heading numbering goes from 6.1.12 to 1.1.3. The next level 2
heading is 1.2 BES-Factory Operations which I believe should be 6.2. Numbering is off in the rest of the document.

2) On page 20, I believe you are missing a header for the ‘GetActivityDocuments’ message. The current text describes
TerminateAcitivities Faults and then the next header is ‘inputs’.

3) The only faults defined for GetActivityStatus, TerminateActivities, and GetActivityDocuments is
InvalidRequestMessageFault. Since these messages all take an EPR[] as input, it seems useful to also have a fault for
Unknown ERP value, i.e., the message is syntactically correct but an input EPR value isn’t known to the BES handling
the message.

4) On page 22, in the discussion of Idempotent Execution Semantics it states a BES MUST not create the requested
activity a second time if it already created the activity for the first request. I believe you should qualify this with
some reasonable time-frame. Expecting a BES to detect such duplicates over its entire lifetime isn’t reasonable.
Perhaps only ensuring this is true until the first request has completed would be adequate?

5) In the Security Considerations discussion on page 23, I understand this document does not define security mechanisms.
Still, it is defining a web services protocol standard and I think it is quite reasonable to recommend the BES-defined
message be secured based on the WS-I Basic Security Profile guidelines.

Steven Newhouse

06/26/2007 8:09 AM

post5837

Re: Some suggestions on a very good draft

Version 34 responds to these comments:

> 1)  The draft has a numbering problem.  On page 17 the heading numbering goes 
> from 6.1.12 to 1.1.3.  The next level 2 heading is 1.2 BES-Factory Operations 
> which I believe should be 6.2.  Numbering is off in the rest of the document. 

Fixed.

> 2) On page 20, I believe you are missing a header for the ‘
> GetActivityDocuments’ message. The current text describes 
> TerminateAcitivities Faults and then the next header is ‘inputs’.

Fixed.
 
> 3) The only faults defined for GetActivityStatus, TerminateActivities, and 
> GetActivityDocuments is InvalidRequestMessageFault. Since these messages all 
> take an EPR[] as input, it seems useful to also have a fault for Unknown ERP 
> value, i.e., the message is syntactically correct but an input EPR value isn’
> t known to the BES handling the message.

UnknownActivityIdentifier fault added into these operations.

> 4) On page 22, in the discussion of Idempotent Execution Semantics it states a
>  BES MUST not create the requested activity a second time if it already 
> created the activity for the first request. I believe you should qualify this 
> with some reasonable time-frame. Expecting a BES to detect such duplicates 
> over its entire lifetime isn’t reasonable. Perhaps only ensuring this is true
>  until the first request has completed would be adequate?

Discussion Item

> 5) In the Security Considerations discussion on page 23, I understand this 
> document does not define security mechanisms. Still, it is defining a web 
> services protocol standard and I think it is quite reasonable to recommend the
>  BES-defined message be secured based on the WS-I Basic Security Profile 
> guidelines.

References to WS-I BSP and the HPCP specification added.

Thank you for your comments.

Steven

Return