Mass Update

Mass Move

This document will be published in the GGF Document series
as an INFORMATIONAL type document.

An INFORMATIONAL type document is intended to inform
the community.  It is not intended to define any standard
or recommendation, nor does it necessarily represent
community consensus or endorsement.

For more information on the GGF Document Series

see:        http://www.ggf.org/documents/

Mass Update

I have reviewed the comments received in the public comment period and the subsequent revisions to the document. The document authors have adequately 
addressed the public comments. Some of these changes are non-consequential to the review process, as for example changing the reference to "GIR" and 
adding contributors. A 1/2 page section was added for use cases in response to a comment. These use cases are illustrative and are not presented as 
exhaustive of all potential use cases, and hence are merely supportive of the central arguement of the paper.  I therefore consider this new text to 
be insufficient to warrant a new document review period. I recommend this document advance to publication.

As a minor question to the GGF editor, the document authors have included in the document header the dates of interim document edits. Should these 
dates remain in the document? I don't consider these dates to be important as these interim versions of the document are not published by the GGF, but
 there may be a current practice here I am not aware of.

jt

Based on feedback during the public comment, and one additional event, three changes were made:

1. Added two use case scenarios (as suggested)
2. Updated author/editor/contributor section (as promised/suggested)
3. Changed "GridIR" to "GIR" to be self-consistent with the WG name

No other changes were made. 

This document should now be ready for publication, we hope!
  -- Greg, Kevin, Nassib

On the usecase scenarios, we will add a couple of use cases and briefly describe them (perhaps a paragraph each).  We agree with the importance of 
providing such scenarios.  Since this is a requirements document, we don't want to constrain future work, so they will be someone cursory in nature.

Document has now finished public comment.

SourceForge Comments:

By: Nobody/Anonymous - nobody
Recommend publication   
2004-03-20 16:04  

I've read this document and recommend it for publication. 

John Tollefsrud, ISP AD  



By: Nobody/Anonymous - nobody
 RE: Recommend publication   
2004-03-30 19:22  

I think the doc is in good shape. I'd suggest adding a section noting the folks who discussed the doc - in other WGs I've seen lists separate from the
 author list that were either a) contributors -people who sent input/participated in discussions, or b) the membership of the group during the time 
the doc was created. 

Jim Myers  

By: Nobody/Anonymous - nobody
RE: Recommend publication   
2004-04-01 18:54  

I have read this document carefully and recommend it for publication. But I like to suggest adding a section describing Grid IR usecase scenarios to 
this requirement document. It will help to distinguish Grid IR from other ordinary internet search engines. It will also show some of the important 
merits that GridIR has.

Paul Yangwoo Kim

This document will now enter a 30 day public comment period. Due date 4/2/04.

I misunderstood the sequence, thinking this had already been out for public comment as it's been in the hopper for so long. Certainly it needs to go 
out if it hasn't yet.

Adding a file: No, I don't have that option (I even double-checked in the HTML source).  Meanwhile, I've been unable for the past few hours to upload 
the editable file (I keep getting "An Error Occurred.") as a new tracker item.  I can email the editable version to you if you'd like

Document process: Yes, this is clear and I agree with the distinction.  I think the problem is that the GridForge submission categories are not so 
clear.  I'll classify this correctly, the next time around (or perhaps you can re-classify in the tracker.  I can't.).

Greg et. al.-
Please send a text, RTF or MSWord version of the draft for editing.

My initial review of this document is that it reads as a set of functional requirements but is not a specification as one would expect in a 
recommendations track document for a "standard."  This is an extremely useful draft in that it catalogs and explains a comprehensive set of functional
 requirements, but it seems to me more appropriate as an informational document.

The draft also refers "the OGSA Grid" and to IR in an "OGSA Grid" context, referencing the "Physiology of the Grid" paper in the introduction.  
However the draft itself does not seem to be specific toward OGSA but rather toward Grid computing in the abstract.  There is some concern in the OGSA
 community about the use of OGSA as a general adjective as opposed to a specific indication of compliance to the OGSA technical architecture or 
related specifications.  To avoid confusion it would be better to avoid phrases such as "OGSA grid-based IR" in favor of simply referencing for 
context the Physiology paper and talk about general Grid.  Such phrases can be read to imply that this draft is in some way technically specific to 
OGSA, and by extension technically "compliant."