-----Original Message-----
From: Astfalk, Greg
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 7:24 AM
To: Linesch, Mark; Walker, Martin Antony (HPTC); Vickers, Paul
Subject: comments on OGF Technical Strategy document

FWIW, in no particular order, and ranging from mega- to minutia...

 - Section 1.2 is missing a section numberin the third sentence

 - Section 1.3:  "distributed computing at Internet scale" is a
   poor summation.  It will, for many people, eliminate the more
   practical and valuable intra-organization grids.

 - Section 1.3, second paragraph implies that your focus is only on
   collections of supercomputers.  I certainly hope that is <not> the
   case.  Otherwise why did you merge with EGA, and why am I funding
   OGF?

 - Section 2: the stated goal is laudable, very.  However, I have  
angst
   over the use of "defined" (see more comments below).  The clock is
   ticking and 3 years is a genuinely short time-frame to get through
   the process described later in the document.  For me this imples  
that
   you need to speed-up since pushing the date out is the wrong thing
   to do.

 - In some places in the document you use the construct "...text -
text..."
   this should always be "...text<em-dashh>text...".  That is, use the
   em-dash character (Word has it) with no spaces on either side.   
There
   are some places where you did this.

 - The bullet list in section 2 does not have the requisite  
emphasis on
   "product".  OGF needs to be known for more than jsut paper specs.
   How do reference implementations evolve to "product"?

 - Figure 1: I assume that the union of use cases will provide the  
gaps?
   This should be almost known already, especially including the
commercial
   space.  This gors back to my point above that 2010 is an aggressive
   goal.

 - OGF has a lot of WGs, some more important and relevant than others.
   Is there a possiblity of re-factoring the human capital toward
meeting
   the core set of WGs needed to meet your 2010 goal?  I am aware that
   this is volunteer stuff.

 - Section 4.3: Would this be more accurate titled if it were "Data
   Movement"

 - Section 4.3: Change "...from this from this..." to "...from  
this..."

 - Section 4.6: You need to add auditing to the required list,  
i.e., all
   three components of the so-called AAA (aka triple-A) are necessary.

 - Section 4.6.1" Tyhw work of Wenbo Mao in HPL-Beijing is, IMO,
   especially useful here.  It does, however, require the presence of
TPMs.

 - Section 5 in the sub-bullet list: You list "Product" and that it is
   supported.  By who?  This goes back to my point on the word  
"defined"
   in your goal statement.  Organizations will not be able or ready to
   build operational grids without functioning code.  It is  
axiomatic to
   me that if only paper specs exist then your goal will not be
realizable.
   It is also nearly so that you can not develop "product" by  
then.  To
   have "support" by 2010 is, IMO, impossible.  Is this a solvable
   conundrum?

 - Section 5: Change "Table 1 is not a complete list of OGF activity
nor..."
   to "Table 1 is neither a complete list of OGF activity nor...".   
You
   know, the ususal neither/nor, either/or thing...

 - Section 6: A really, really good mandate.  Change "All OGF document
   must..." to "All OGF documents must...".