Confcall-d4-17feb05
From GEANT2-JRA1 Wiki
Contents |
Information
Gatekeeper: pgk.vc.dfn.de (for non-GDS members)
- IP: 004910091212314***4522
ISDN
- Dial: 0049 711 633 0190 or 0049 30 254 10800
- Listen to the lady
- Type conf-id 004910091212314***4522#
Agenda
- D4 objective
- D4 scope (in respect with the GFD)
- relation with the work done for the prototype
- D4 timeline
Finish at 12:00 CET
Minutes
Attendees
Szymon Trocha (PSNC, scribe)
Nicolas Simar (DANTE)
Loukik Kudarimoti (DANTE)
Harris Laskaridis (GRNet)
Athanassions Liakopoulos (GRNet)
Discussion
NS explained the goals of the conf call and reminded that the deliverable DJ1.2.2 "System architecture modules design" would be due for the midldle of August 2005. He explained that the goal of D4 was to define sevices from GFD in details. Group agreed.
NS noticed that initially DJ1.2.2 would detail services but it hadn't been written in the proposal if it would cover measurement tools and visualisation. He asked whethter to include them. ST said there was no other document for it. He proposed to include it in two possible ways: chapter or addendum. NS reminded it was not a task of D4 to write those parts. ST wondered if the visualtisation part would be rady for August. If not it could be an addendum. The group left those two options open and agree the core of the document would be detailed design of services.
HL asked if measurement tools design was included MP design. NS answered it was still under discussion. LK wondered whether we had time to include it. NS asked if we could restrict ourselves to design one or two measurement tools for DJ1.2.2. LK suggested to postpone the decision.
TL was confused. He thought the deliverable would have to include everything what was not included in GFD. LK answered he saw it in a different way - to go into much more detail in a way that the document can be taken over by developers. The discussion came back to whether or not include measurement tools in the deliverable. AL suggested to involve in that discussion also other people and not restrict it only to D4 participants. Group agreed to ask others.
AL said we had diverted form the initial description of work (domain controller) and suggested the revisions of it would be necessary. NS didn't agree and explained the proposal had been written in such a way we could go for any direction. ST noticed we could also rely on reviewers' comments.
ST said we would have at least one type of visualisation for the prototype and it could be included in DJ1.2.2. The same for measurement tool. Group agreed to ask people responsible for this part of work to provide a part of the deliverable. NS asked TL whether GRNet could be an editor of DJ1.2.2. TL answered he needed one day.
Discussion on how D4 will interact with prototype activity. LK explained 5 areas of prototype. There is a link between area 2 (detailed design) and D4. It could be a single group working on that. D4 had to do more and define additional services not covered by prototype. HL stated D4 would have input from prototype design. ST said he wouldn't like to split D4 and prototype work and there are the same people working. He thought prototype was 70% of D4 work and there were 2 months left for the rest of services for DJ1.2.2. ST suggested to work both groups together and work on single document. LK agreed but doubted prototype could provide 70%. LK said D4 would need to specify different types of MP wrappers for different types of tools. One of them will be done by prototype. D4 should see prototype work as an intermidiate evaluation of work done by D4.
Some discussion about mailing list. Decided to add other NRENs from D4 to prototype mailing list.
NS updated on current sevices for prototype and who was involved. TL suggested to have people assigned to services. ST reminded we had 5 areas for prototype and leads for them. He sugested this assginment of people to services would be more helpful while moving to implementation phase. NS suggested it was better to have a person writting a strawman for each area. But we can find out who is interested in each service. ST agreed strawman proposals were good approaches.
ST said there was a need for coordination between D1 and D4.
Conf call ended at 12:05 CET
Download to listen to this conf call.
Actions
- (Szymon): Add people from RedIris and SWITCH to prototype mailing list.
- (Athanassios): Identify candidates involved in services based on iterest.
- (Athanassios & Szymon): Come up with a workplan for D4/prototype.
- (Athanassios): Decide whether GRNet take care of editorial work for D1.2.2.
Back to JRA1 Events
