|
Greg Newby: 12/11/2005 10:54 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Mass Update
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to Closed
close_date changed from - to 2005-12-11 18:54:17
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 02/01/2005 1:11 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Mass Move
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_group changed from SRM to <None>
artifact_status changed from Closed to Open
assigned_to changed from 133 to 100
Category changed from Recommendations Track to <None>
group_artifact_id changed from Submit GGF Draft to Not Published
resolution changed from Returned to Authors/Group to <None>
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 01/25/2005 12:22 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
This tracker will close as this document will be resubmitted. Authors will have to create a new tracker.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 01/25/2005 12:22 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Author Reviewing Edits to Closed
close_date changed from - to 2005-01-25 11:22:03
Priority changed from 2 to -
resolution changed from <None> to Returned to Authors/Group
|
|
Bill Nitzberg: 12/01/2004 2:19 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Update on current status:
After discussion among the active participants of the UR-WG, consensus is to merge the NLD and XML specifications into a single recommendations
document. Rebekah, Scott, and Laura have agreed to draft the consolidated document, incorporating responses to the comments received during the
public comment period for the original 2 documents.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Bill Nitzberg: 12/01/2004 2:18 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Update on current status:
After discussion among the active participants of the UR-WG, consensus is to merge the NLD and XML specifications into a single recommendations
document. Rebekah, Scott, and Laura have agreed to draft the consolidated document, incorporating responses to the comments received during the
public comment period for the original 2 documents.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Bill Nitzberg: 10/14/2004 1:13 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Current status: Rebekah Metz, Laura McGinnis, and Scott Jackson are meeting on Friday to draft a roadmap forward to closeout the deliverables from
the UR-WG, which includes a plan for what to do with this document.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Jennifer Schopf: 09/08/2004 1:10 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
contacted rodney mach to unify the two UR documents on 8/30
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Jennifer Schopf: 09/08/2004 1:10 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Public Comment Period to Author Reviewing Edits
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 08/18/2004 12:16 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
This document has finished public comment but will wait for Bill to return from vacation so the AD's can determine the next step for this document.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 06/16/2004 10:55 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Document will now enter a 60 day public comment period.
Due date: 8-16-04
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 06/16/2004 10:55 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Pending Info from Authors to Public Comment Period
Priority changed from 4 to 3
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 06/16/2004 10:54 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
version 1.9 is the latest document with the appropriate changes document will advance to public comment
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 06/15/2004 2:17 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from GFSG Review to Pending Info from Authors
|
|
Jennifer Schopf: 03/12/2004 6:17 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
new draft combing this document and table
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Bill Nitzberg: 02/18/2004 5:17 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
It appears that many of the tables in the added appendix have been cut-off (on the right hand side). This formatting error needs to be fixed before
this document can proceed to Editor review.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Stacey Giannese(disabled): 02/13/2004 2:10 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Returned to Author(s) to GFSG Review
Priority changed from 5 to 4
|
|
Rebekah Lepro: 02/13/2004 1:03 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
As per editor and area chairs, the Usage Record Survey Results document was added to this document as an appendix. Draft 1.8 of the
NaturalLanguageDoc reflects this addition and is resubmitted for review.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Rebekah Lepro: 02/13/2004 1:01 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
As per editor and area chairs, the Usage Record Survey Results document was added to this document as an appendix. Draft 1.8 of the
NaturalLanguageDoc reflects this addition and is resubmitted for review.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
|
Rebekah Lepro: 12/18/2003 12:05 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
In response to editor comments:
1. There are items in the UR that I think are misnamed or miscast.
For example there is a globalidname. In the emergent view of
federations, these identifiers may not be globally unique, just
unique within the federation (which is perhaps all we care about).
I suppose that if I cared about this passionately, I should
have chimed into the doc at the WG level and at this point,
my role on GFSG is to approve/disapprove this doc on a high
level.
The description of this data element specifically calls out that this may be global with reference to a metascheduler or federation scheduler.
2. There are items missing in the UR that I would have assumed should be in a usage record, for example, the time (in GMT) that the job
initiated, so that an audit can be done if needed.
Again, I assume that I should have gotten involved in the WG earlier and such low-level concerns should not be raised now at the GFSG level.
The NLD defines an extension element to encourage the exchange of data specifically between sites that is not individually addressed in this document.
Further, the implementation document (XML Schema) provides several extension facilities for representing such data relevant to a particular
accounting record.
3. The most important concern is that there is no security mention in this doc, except to say that security is out of scope. That
raises lots of issues for me. The two biggest are a.) declaring
something out of scope might be prudence and encourages flexibility,
but unless someone else declares the issue to be in scope, it
doesnt get addressed. What we have learned in other standards
processes is that flexibility often leads to a lack of real
interoperability, as implementers take different approaches
to doing the unspecified tasks. With something as complex as
Grid software, I would think we want to be careful on what we
leave unspecified, lest we lose interoperability. For groups
that want to use the UR, they will apply their own flavor of
security around the UR and make it unreadable by others. b.)
The lack of security is especially serious given that there
is no apparent architecture that this UR fits into who will
consume this record? Since we dont have an accounting/audit
architecture (at least I dont know of one, and Ive asked a
few people), the lack of any inherent security around this record
makes it very unclear what to do with this record. I am used
to design work where an architecture is done first, and then
requirements on payloads (such as UR) within that architecture
are better understood. I think the lack of an architecture in
this area is a GFSG issue, a serious one. I dont want to inflict
that issue on the UR group (they did their narrow job) but wonder
where to address it.
Response:
Security was determined to be an issue for data interchange and
implementation, not the format of the data record itself. That's what
pushed this into the realm of "out of scope". In practice (e.g. the
Teragrid's Accounting WG's AMIE implementation), we're seeing
implementations of the UR that accept this and are building security into the interchange, rather than modifying the UR structure itself. Other GGF
groups are working on information interchange issues. Since the UR is just a data packet, it should be exchangeable via whatever standards are
developed for other "system administration" type data (e.g. account creation, job scheduling requests).
Nevertheless, introductory and security section were included at the beginning of the document that indicate this position.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
|
Jennifer Schopf: 10/28/2003 1:40 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
assigned_to changed from 157 to 133
|
|
Jennifer Schopf: 10/28/2003 1:40 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Based on SG comments, this document has been sent back to the working group for further discussion.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Jennifer Schopf: 10/28/2003 1:40 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from GFSG Review to Returned to Author(s)
Priority changed from 4 to 5
|
|
Steve Crumb: 09/23/2003 7:06 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Updated "Sched" Group name to "SRM".
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 09/22/2003 5:05 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Editor mistake- this draft should be held until after 2 week GFSG internal review (which was initiated today).
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 09/22/2003 5:05 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
Priority changed from 3 to 4
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 09/22/2003 5:04 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Draft in PDF format attached for public comment.
I note that the reference (survey results) is a draft that has been submitted to the GGF editor for review. The reference can be adjusted once that
draft has been published.
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 09/22/2003 5:04 PM EST
|
|
Attachment: |
draft-rec-ur-natlang.pdf
(160.55 KB)
|
|
Action: |
Update
File added set to 113: draft-rec-ur-natlang.pdf
assigned_to changed from 119 to 157
Priority changed from 4 to 3
|
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 09/22/2003 4:35 PM EST
|
|
Comment: |
This draft is being forwarded to GFSG for (max) 2 week internal review as prescribed for REC track drafts.
The only substantive remark would be that the references section contains a URL to an online document of survey results. References should be to
persistent documents. Is this reference published, or expected to be published, at some point in the near future?
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 09/22/2003 4:35 PM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Initial Editor Review to GFSG Review
assigned_to changed from 108 to 119
Priority changed from 5 to 4
|
|
Charlie Catlett: 09/12/2003 6:52 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_status changed from Open to Initial Editor Review
Priority changed from - to 5
|
|
Steve Crumb: 09/04/2003 11:10 AM EST
|
|
Comment: |
Changed Group to "SCHED"
|
|
Action: |
Update
|
|
Steve Crumb: 09/04/2003 11:10 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Update
artifact_group changed from DATA to SCHED
|
|
None: 09/03/2003 11:24 AM EST
|
|
Action: |
Create
|
|
None: 09/03/2003 11:24 AM EST
|
|
Attachment: |
NaturalLanguageDoc.1.6.doc
(137.5 KB)
|
|
Action: |
Update
File added set to 90: NaturalLanguageDoc.1.6.doc
|
|