Comments inline: > > 1. In general there are a number of times where this document > seems to be wishful thinking. I think it'd be better if you > reduced it to the more concrete use-cases where implementation is > actually planned and where you can be more authoritative about > how abfab will be beneficial. Sections 3.5 and 3.9 in particular > seem weak to me and the document might be better if they were > deleted - would you really miss them?
Think this has been dealt with in subsequent discussions and opinions on the list. I personally am happy with there being a mix of concrete use cases and a few more aspirational ones. Doesn't hurt to be aspirational, as long as that's not all you are... > 2. ID nits says: > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC > 2060 (Obsoleted by RFC 3501) > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC > 2821 (Obsoleted by RFC 5321) > > -- No information found for draft-freeman-plasma-requirements - > is the name correct? > > Looks like these should be updated as noted in the writeup. Fixed. > 3. Please expand CRM on 1st use Done. > 4. Maybe move the reference to SSH to the end of 3.1, from the > start of 3.2, or ideally provide a reference to an "abfab-enabled > SSH" if you have one. (And say "secure shell (SSH)" on 1st use.) Done. > 5. 2nd last para of 3.3 could do with some references really. Don't know of anywhere this is written down well enough to reference; this is from well-known operational experience. Happy to add a reference if anyone has one… ? > 6. The argument in 3.3 that grid admin complexity is really due > to X.509 seems weak to me. I'd expect you to get comments about > that. And replacing the entire VO thing would be a large task. > It'd be better if you had a very specific use-case here I think > rather than being so general. The issue isn't really that X.509 makes grid admin complex, but rather that it makes the user experience complex. I think we'd have a hard time finding anyone who would be willing to argue that point… > 7. Its not clear to me how abfab helps in 3.5 - I think you'd > maybe need to say some more about how that'd work. > > 8. 3.9: is it "smart object" or "smart device" just using one > marketing term would be better (zero even moreso;-) > > 9. 3.9 seems quite far-fetched to me. Do you really expect > sensors to use gss-eap? Think these have been addressed in other comments. _______________________________________________ abfab mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/abfab
