|
Greg Newby: 05/06/2007 4:46 AM EDT
|
|
Action: |
Update
resolution changed from PUBLISHED to none (no value)
|
|
Greg Newby: 09/27/2005 1:17 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Mass Update
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to Closed
close_date changed from - to 2005-09-26 22:17:01
resolution changed from <None> to PUBLISHED
|
|
Greg Newby: 09/27/2005 1:06 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_group changed from Management to <None>
artifact_status changed from Closed to Open
Category changed from Recommendations Track to <None>
group_artifact_id changed from Submit GGF Draft to Published
Priority changed from 5 to -
resolution changed from Published to <None>
|
|
Joel Replogle: 09/26/2005 11:19 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Published as GFD.51 on 26 September, 2005
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Joel Replogle: 09/26/2005 11:19 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from ready to publish to Closed
assigned_to changed from 9357 to 100
close_date changed from - to 2005-09-27 00:19:51
Priority changed from 1 to 5
|
|
Greg Newby: 09/09/2005 2:33 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Final Editor Review to ready to publish
assigned_to changed from 302 to 9357
resolution changed from Accepted to Published
|
|
Greg Newby: 09/09/2005 2:32 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
I've applied the font changes, and am uploading
this as GFD-R-D.051.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Greg Newby: 08/23/2005 10:11 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
This has been approved for publication by the GFSG. I
will do the font changes & final formatting as mentioned
in the tracker, then will publish as GFD.051.
Thanks to the authors for work on this document!
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 08/23/2005 10:11 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_group changed from old-SRM to Management
artifact_status changed from Final 15day GFSG Review to Final Editor Review
assigned_to changed from 9357 to 302
Priority changed from 2 to 1
resolution changed from Works For Me to Accepted
|
|
None: 08/08/2005 9:13 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
A nit: the doc has some inconsistent fonts and sizes - probably a result of dropping text into the template. Clean up around pp 6-8, 23, 31, 32. Most
of the document's paragraph style is "body text" 11pt, but some is "normal" 12 pt, which is creating the inconsistent appearance.
Looks good otherwise. Thanks to the WG authors for the effort!
John Tollefsrud
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 08/07/2005 6:50 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Note: the GFSG's due date for action on this item is
August 23, or the standards conference call immediately
following.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 08/07/2005 6:47 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
I've made a few small changes to the document: the header
and footer, and removed the mention of "DRAFT", and removed
"Revision 0.6."
This document is now in final GFSG review.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 08/07/2005 6:47 PM EST
|
|
Attachment: |
draft-ggf-cddlm-language-smartfrog3.doc
(408 KB)
|
|
Action: |
Update
File added set to 661: draft-ggf-cddlm-language-smartfrog3.doc
artifact_status changed from Final Editor Review to Final 15day GFSG Review
assigned_to changed from 133 to 9357
Priority changed from 1 to 2
|
|
Greg Newby: 07/12/2005 9:43 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Thanks - I will do the final processing on this document, looking for any
remaining minor changes, and then it will be published.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 07/12/2005 9:43 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Returned to Author(s) to Final Editor Review
Priority changed from 4 to 1
resolution changed from Returned to Authors/Group to Works For Me
|
|
dejan@hpl.hp.com: 07/07/2005 10:25 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Dejan applied suggestions by editor
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Greg Newby: 06/26/2005 3:02 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
The next step for this document is final GFSG review, but
it needs some final editing first.
Before presenting this to the GFSG for a 15-day review, I would
like a document with improved formatting.
Authors/editors, would you please re-submit this document with:
- all "changes" accepted in MS Word
- the copyright statement (without the GGF logo) similar to any
recently published GGF document and GFD-C.1
- regenerated/current table of contents
I did not see any problems with this document, otherwise.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 06/26/2005 3:02 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Final Editor Review to Returned to Author(s)
assigned_to changed from 302 to 133
Priority changed from 1 to 4
resolution changed from <None> to Returned to Authors/Group
|
|
Greg Newby: 06/26/2005 1:49 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Pending Info from Authors to Final Editor Review
|
|
Greg Newby: 06/26/2005 12:54 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Via email from Dejan, here is the next iteration of this
document.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Greg Newby: 12/22/2004 4:08 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
After several subsequent email messages, I asked the Grid Forum Steering Group (GFSG) for feedback as to whether this should be Recommendation track.
The main issue is whether it's likely for a second independent implementation, and thus whether the document might be more suitable as an
Informational track.
The outcome is confirmation that the authors can continue with pursuit of Recommendation track. If there is never the second independent
implementation (and other criteria for going from a proposed recommendation to a final recommendation, under GFD-1), then the document would remain a
proposed recommendation. As long as the authors understand this, it is acceptable to the GFSG (including me, the Editor) for this to be
Recommendation track.
Authors: please upload the final version (if there are any small edits you still with to apply), or confirm that the 4/27 version is final. Then,
this will be published. Thanks again for your work on this document, and the CDDLM companion document.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
dejan@hpl.hp.com: 12/08/2004 4:33 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
From: owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Milojicic, Dejan S
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 12:29 PM
To: cddlm-wg@ggf.org
Cc: Hiro Kishimoto
Subject: [cddlm] SF-based language spec, dilemma whether to go with a recommendations or common practice document track
Hi,
I had an extensive discussion with Greg Newby yesterday morning on various topics, but most of the time we spent discussing the recommendation that
Hiro brought up: "Why is SmartFrog-based language specification submitted as a recommendation track?" To be even more specific, Hiro recommended that
it be resubmitted as a "Community Practice" because there will not be two reference implementations as a result of the standardization process. I
checked with two other main drivers (Softricity and NEC) and neither indeed planned to pursue a reference implementation of the SmartFrog-based
language at the time. I also checked with technical area directors and their recommendation was not to go with community practices because that track
is applicable to something that is as commonly used as FTP and they have not considered SF to be that wide-spread. With all this information on my
mind I approached Greg to discuss whether we should change submission to experimental or even informational track.
Our discussion was quite productive. I updated Greg that SmartFrog is in fact in active use by a number of universities, HP, and other parties; that
it has been open-sourced; and that the submitted spec is the most formal specification of the SF language (goes well beyond the reference manual
published for the language, system, and component model). Then we discussed the issue of the target type. At the moment the document has reached the
point of the recommendation track and formally we can take it any way we want. The reasons for sticking with the recommendation track are the
following:
a) At the moment it is not clear that there will or will not be another reference implementation and one already exists. Two other partners claimed
that they will not create one, but it is possible that other parties may create one. We would need to come up with another independently implemented
SF-language parser that would create the same output as the existing one.
b) If the XML-based language interoperates with the SF-based language, that would be another proof point (this would require two other reference
implementations of the XML-based language specs, though, but this is also open or the discussion).
c) If after the process, there are no other reference implementations, we can still downgrade the document. However, Greg and I estimated the value of
proceeding the recommendations track at the moment.
I welcome comments to this discussion by email or by phone (650 236-2906 office, 650 468-3929 cell).
Hiro, I appreciate your thoughtful suggestion. It was a good observation and it took us some time to truly understand all the implications. I hope
that the final outcome works for you. If not, I'd be glad to continue discussion until we find a solution that will work for everyone. As you can see
from the Greg's note below, we also agreed to provide some additional front-matter to the document. Finally, I will submit this email to Source Forge
to capture this discussion. I recommend that any follow-ups also be submitted there.
Thanks,
Dejan.
Greg's GridForge input is available at
https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=414&aid=827&group_
id=90 and also copied below:
Comment By: Greg Newby (2004-12-08 11:35:03) Per a telephone conversation with Dejan, I now agree this should be recommendation track. The authors
are essentially providing a CDDLM specification which, at the same time, is the most formal specification for SmartFrog.
There is already one reference implementation, and we anticipate there will be more by the end of the GGF's recommendation review timeline.
Some additional front matter will be added to provide further background on SmartFrog, as well as the nature of existing reference implementations
and the relationship to CDDLM (as an application area for SmartFrog).
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Greg Newby: 12/08/2004 3:35 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Per a telephone conversation with Dejan, I now agree this should be recommendation track. The authors are essentially providing a CDDLM specification
which, at the same time, is the most formal specification for SmartFrog. There is already one reference implementation, and we anticipate there will
be more by the end of the GGF's recommendation review timeline.
Some additional front matter will be added to provide further background on SmartFrog, as well as the nature of existing reference implementations
and the relationship to CDDLM (as an application area for SmartFrog).
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 11/16/2004 12:29 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
This document is waiting for authors comments. Authors have been posed a question "why it is recommendation document instead of community practice"
and Hiro has not received an answer yet.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 11/16/2004 12:29 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Final 15day GFSG Review to Pending Info from Authors
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 10/28/2004 12:46 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Public Comment Period to Final 15day GFSG Review
Priority changed from 3 to 2
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 07/14/2004 11:32 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Document will now enter a 60 day public comment period. Due date: 9-14-04
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 07/14/2004 11:32 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from AD Review to Public Comment Period
Priority changed from 4 to 3
|
|
Bill Nitzberg: 07/13/2004 11:42 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
I have reviewed this document, and believe it should go out for public comment. (I have a couple edits which I will make as part of the official
public comment process).
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Jennifer Schopf: 06/24/2004 8:48 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
Priority changed from 5 to 4
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 04/27/2004 11:27 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to AD Review
assigned_to changed from 108 to 119
Priority changed from - to 5
|
|
|
|