Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI	Deliverable or milestone identifier: D5.1.3
Title: DJRA1.1.3 - Compute Area Work Plan and Status Report	Doc. identifier: EMI-DXXX-CDSREF-Title-vx.x
Author(s): M. Cecchi	Due date: 30/04/12

Identification of the reviewer
Name: Ivan Marton	Affiliation: NIIFI	EMI Activity/External project or Institute: JRA1/SA1

Review date	05/07/2012
Author(s) revision date	05/08/2012
Reviewer acceptance date	mm/dd/yyyy

Attach the reviewed document to the deliverable page, put here a link

General comments

Pages should be numbered. I've printed out the document to read it comfortable, but it was really hard to follow them without this easy hint.

"Computing Services" and "Storage Services" are always capitalized even when they are used in a generic manner. They shouldn't be.

I'm not sure if JANITOR is part of EMI. If no, it should be removed from the document. If yes, it can stay of course.

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

N°	Page	Section	Observations and Replies	Is Addressed?
1	5-6	Table of contents	The elements in the table of contents should be arranged to the left not justified
2	7	1.1	"One surely worth to mention" is weird. I'm not sure if this is valid expression.
3	8	1.1	In the last sentence the word "compute" should be removed since not only the compute services are involved.
4	10	2.1	Is the way, that CREAM maintain its own script a sustainable solution? Maybe this should be proven.
5	10	2.2	What are "purchaser" modules mean? The concept wasn't introduced before and is brand new for me.
6	11	2.3	The whole 2.3 section is missing.
7	11	2.4	The word "whatever" should be replaced on both of its location with a more appropriate word.
8	12-13	2.4	In the table, in the column of UNICORE, "The server will be released in EMI-2, not the client." could be rather "The server will be released in EMI-2, the client won't."
9	14	2.7	"as one of supported the batch system" -> "as one of the supported batch systems"
10	15	2.8	The section should reference to 3.1 and should suggest that it's almost ready since it was completely restarted as it's later written.
11	17	2.13	There will be no effort to harmonize command line arguments, but there will be one CLI offered.
12	17	2.14	"service description is performed" -> "service description is handled"
13	17	2.14	Is it possible to provide more detailed status?
14	17	2.15	Were there any other task performed, or just the one performed by SA2? If no, this one should be more detailed to show the amount of work.
15	18	2.16	The table: should have title; first column title should be SL5 instead of SL6. Is there any specific rule behind the service selection of the table? If yes, that should be described, for example in the title.
16	21	3	"from users communities and other projects and the EMI" -> "from user communities, other projects and the EMI"
17	22	3.4	Is it already decided that submission will be done through EMI-ES in the gLite WMS?
18	31	4	C is accidentally removed from Conclusions (the title)
19	33	Annex 2	C7 objective is missing
20	36	Annex 4	X21.1 (the last line) should be removed.
21	37	Annex 4	X21.8 is missing.

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

-- IvanMarton - 08-May-2012