This is a static archive of the previous Open Grid Forum GridForge content management system saved from host forge.ogf.org file /sf/sfmain/do/go/artf6426?nav=1&selectedTab=comments at Sun, 06 Nov 2022 08:46:26 GMT SourceForge : artf6426: RNS Specification 1.1

Project Home

Tracker

Documents

Tasks

Source Code

Discussions

File Releases

Wiki

Project Admin
Search Tracker
Project: Editor     Trackers > Published > View Artifact
Artifact artf6426 : RNS Specification 1.1
Tracker: Published
Title: RNS Specification 1.1
Description:
In their 2002 book, “Distributed Systems: Principles and Paradigms”, Andrew Tannenbaum and Martin van Steen describe 
in great detail the properties, function, and benefit of naming schemes in distributed systems [Tannenbaum].  
Specifically, they describe a typical three-layer naming scheme whereby human readable names map to location-independent
 names or identifiers, which in turn map to location-dependent addresses.  This three-tiered approach is instrumental in
 providing both usability for clients, as well as many of the classic distributed systems “transparencies” like fault 
and location transparency.  WS-Naming [WS-Naming] provides the mapping between location-independent names (in the form 
of EndpointIdentifiers) and location-dependent addresses (i.e., WS-Addressing EPRs).  In this specification we describe 
the Resource Namespace Service (RNS), a grid port type that allows clients to manipulate and retrieve mappings from 
human-readable strings to WS-Addressing Endpoint Reference Types , thus providing the higher level mapping described by 
Tannenbaum and van Steen.
Submitted By: Osamu Tatebe
Submitted On: 12/30/2009 7:47 AM EST
Last Modified: 12/13/2010 12:32 PM EST

Status / Comments Change Log Associations Attachments (3)  
Status  
Group: *
Status:* Closed
Category: * Community Practice
Customer: *
Priority: * 1
Assigned To: * Joel Replogle
Reported in Release: *
Fixed in Release: *
Estimated Hours: * 0
Actual Hours: * 0
resolution: * Accepted
Comments
Greg Newby: 12/13/2010 12:32 PM EST
  Action: Move
Moved from Submit OGF Draft to Published
Category changed from Recommendations Track to Community Practice
Group changed from Data to none (no value)
resolution set to Accepted
Status changed from Ready to Publish to Closed
Joel Replogle: 12/02/2010 3:37 PM EST
  Comment:
Published as GFD.171 on 2010-12-02.   http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs
  Action: Update
Greg Newby: 11/22/2010 11:14 AM EST
  Comment:
This will now be published as GFD-R-P.171. Thanks for your efforts on this document.
  Action: Update
Assigned To changed from David E Martin to Joel Replogle
Priority changed from 2 to 1
Status changed from GFSG Review: 15-day final to Ready to Publish
Greg Newby: 09/21/2010 10:14 AM EDT
  Comment:
The ADs will be providing feedback on the status of this document shortly, no later than the OGF f2f in Brussels.
  Action: Update
Greg Newby: 09/07/2010 10:33 AM EDT
  Comment:
This is now in 15-day final review.  Thanks.
  Action: Update
Status changed from Author Action Needed to GFSG Review: 15-day final
Osamu Tatebe: 09/01/2010 4:19 AM EDT
  Comment:
The final version is attached.  It is ready for GFSG final review.
  Attachment: RNS-spec-v12.doc (239 KB)
  Action: Update
Added an attachment.
Greg Newby: 08/24/2010 10:40 AM EDT
  Comment:
Authors/editors: public comment is complete.  Please provide a final version of the document (if changes are needed), and indicate readiness for GFSG 
final review in this tracker.  Or via email.  Thanks.
  Action: Update
Assigned To changed from Joel Replogle to David E Martin
Priority changed from 3 to 2
Status changed from Public Comment Period to Author Action Needed
Joel Replogle: 03/23/2010 11:29 AM EDT
  Comment:
Entered 60-day public comment on 2010-03-23.  

Comment URL:
http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/comment.php?id=331
  Action: Update
Osamu Tatebe: 03/20/2010 5:28 AM EDT
  Comment:
document that reflects comments and discussion in OGF28
  Attachment: RNS-spec-v11.doc (233 KB)
  Action: Update
Added an attachment.
Greg Newby: 03/15/2010 9:58 PM EDT
  Comment:
The GFSG approved this, and it is now headed for 60-day public comment.

Authors/editors: please solicit your constituents for comments, once the public comment tracker is set up.
  Action: Update
Assigned To changed from David E Martin to Joel Replogle
Priority changed from 4 to 3
Status changed from GFSG Review: Initial to Public Comment Period
David Snelling: 02/12/2010 6:30 AM EST
  Comment:
Folks: The following from Vivian. I don't think these should hold up PC. She makes comments on both documents, but they are linked, so I put them both
 here.

Dave,

Just spent some time reading the specs. It might be a bit late, but since I have read it, so might as well drop a few lines about the RNS-spec-v1.1 (
btw, the file name is still v10).

In general there are a few places that I felt are inconsistent:
section 1.1 page 3, “but a pseudo-schema for the port types “ [comment]: there is no pseudo-schema at all through out the document, only pseudo-UML,
 so either pseudo-schema should be provided, or just say pseudo-UML, which is kind of strange in an OGF/OASIS document.
the name “RNSResponseEntry” sounds rather strange, isn’t it “RNSEntryResponse” is a natural word in SOAP?
All the “Example SOAP Encoding of the xxx Message Exchange” are up to <s11:Header></wsa:To> only, not sure it is the problem of using Mac Word 
reading it, or it is authors’ intention – it doesn’t make much sense of having an example at all if it only shows a header.
section 3, “Requirement Level”, not sure “MUST” and “MAY” is a formal way of defining it, “Mandatory” and “Optional” are more commonly used 
in this occasion.
all the content in the spec up till page 18, use “fault”, including example, but from section 4 onward, all the faults become “failure”, for 
consistency’s sake, and a common sense in SOAP, “fault” is better here.
RNS properties have been described twice in the spec, one in section 2.2, one in section 3, don’t think it is necessary, or can make section 3 a sub 
section in section 2.2.
the <entry-name>rns:EntryNameType seems to be rather important, and serving as kind of key for all the operations, but apart from the restrictions on 
its style, do we also need to consider its uniqueness?

That is all I can think of right now, if it is too late for public comment, I would like to share this questions with the authors as well.

Thanks,
Vivian 

Dave,

After reading “RNS-OGSA-rendering”, I sort of see why they name it “RNSResponseEntry” rather than “RNSEntryResponse”, but still, sounds odd. The
 rendering document provides nothing more than schema and wsdl, so not much comment there. However, it does reflect the question about using the word 
“failure”, my personal opinion is to use fault throughout, just to avoid confusion. Another finding is back to the spec, all the namespaces of s11 
in the example is inconsistent to section 1.3, not that it is important, but they should be consistent.

Thanks,
Vivian
  Action: Update
Greg Newby: 01/14/2010 2:40 PM EST
  Comment:
Sorry for my delay with this.  For some reason I did not get notification of this new document (feel free to email when you don't get a response 
within a few days).

This document will be scheduled for standards council review for January 26 or soon thereafter, prior to public comment.
  Action: Update
Assigned To changed from Greg Newby to David E Martin
resolution changed from Accepted to none (no value)
Status changed from AD Review to GFSG Review: Initial
Osamu Tatebe: 12/30/2009 7:47 AM EST
  Attachment: RNS-spec-v10.doc (308 KB)
  Action: Create
Added an attachment.


 
 
 
< Previous
 
 
Next >
 


The Open Grid Forum Contact Webmaster | Report a problem | GridForge Help
This is a static archive of the previous Open Grid Forum GridForge content management system saved from host forge.ogf.org file /sf/sfmain/do/go/artf6426?nav=1&selectedTab=comments at Sun, 06 Nov 2022 08:46:26 GMT