Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-17836

Add text to LDM-148 documenting SLAs for enclaves

    Details

    • Type: Story
    • Status: Done
    • Resolution: Done
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: Design Documents
    • Labels:
      None
    • Sprint:
      Arch 2019-02-11, Arch 2019-02-18, Arch 2019-02-25, Arch 2019-03-04
    • Team:
      Architecture

      Description

      Satisfies action item from November 2018 DMLT.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment -

            Adding Michelle Gower as a reviewer to see if I covered essential needs.

            Show
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment - Adding Michelle Gower as a reviewer to see if I covered essential needs.
            Hide
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment -

            Note that an RFC will be issued for this LDM, so the review is only preliminary, not final correctness or acceptance.

            Show
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment - Note that an RFC will be issued for this LDM, so the review is only preliminary, not final correctness or acceptance.
            Hide
            mgower Michelle Gower added a comment -

            Unclear what the action item means.    Based upon the text changes in LDM-148, assuming it meant adding availability requirements for enclaves.    Reviewed text changes limited to that scope (i.e., not checking for non-availability SLA items or commenting on previously existing text).    Individual comments appear in github. 
             
            High level comment:   Some services fulfill multiple roles in with different availability requirements (i.e., depend upon components of other enclaves).   So, the text tends to take side-trips to cover the multiple uses (and explain the availability differences).   Not sure how to make this better.    Maybe there are online and offline versions of a service and each should only appear in the appropriate enclave?   Separate discussion of the (reusable) services from discussions of enclaves? 

            Show
            mgower Michelle Gower added a comment - Unclear what the action item means.    Based upon the text changes in LDM-148, assuming it meant adding availability requirements for enclaves.    Reviewed text changes limited to that scope (i.e., not checking for non-availability SLA items or commenting on previously existing text).    Individual comments appear in github.    High level comment:   Some services fulfill multiple roles in with different availability requirements (i.e., depend upon components of other enclaves).   So, the text tends to take side-trips to cover the multiple uses (and explain the availability differences).   Not sure how to make this better.    Maybe there are online and offline versions of a service and each should only appear in the appropriate enclave?   Separate discussion of the (reusable) services from discussions of enclaves? 
            Hide
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment -

            Added clarifications based on review comments, merged to master.  Will submit an RFC.

            Show
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment - Added clarifications based on review comments, merged to master.  Will submit an RFC.

              People

              • Assignee:
                ktl Kian-Tat Lim
                Reporter:
                ktl Kian-Tat Lim
                Reviewers:
                Michelle Gower
                Watchers:
                Kian-Tat Lim, Michelle Gower
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                2 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel