Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-654

Accept LDM-723 and updated LDM-612 as a baseline

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Implemented
    • Resolution: Done
    • Component/s: Document
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      Accept a new document, LDM-723, which provides the Call for Proposals for community alert brokers.

      Minor updates to LDM-612 to support the broker call.

      Docushare: https://docushare.lsst.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-63320/LDM-723.pdf and https://docushare.lsst.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Version-63321/LDM-612.pdf

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Others may find the diff at https://github.com/lsst/LDM-612/compare/tickets/RFC-592...tickets/RFC-654 helpful; I know I did.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Others may find the diff at https://github.com/lsst/LDM-612/compare/tickets/RFC-592...tickets/RFC-654 helpful; I know I did.
            Hide
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment -

            (The use of \newtext and \oldtext means that the resulting PDF has color-coded changes.)

            The changes in LDM-612 and the new LDM-723 look fine to me.

            I would encourage the broker evaluation, as part of its consideration of technical resources (LDM-612 §4.6) to consider specifically 1) the ability of the proposer to support integration activities both during Commissioning/Early Operations and later during the course of the survey if/when technical aspects of the broker interface are modified and 2) the ability of the proposer to handle downstream customer inquiries and issues independently of LSST.

            Show
            ktl Kian-Tat Lim added a comment - (The use of \newtext and \oldtext means that the resulting PDF has color-coded changes.) The changes in LDM-612 and the new LDM-723 look fine to me. I would encourage the broker evaluation, as part of its consideration of technical resources (LDM-612 §4.6) to consider specifically 1) the ability of the proposer to support integration activities both during Commissioning/Early Operations and later during the course of the survey if/when technical aspects of the broker interface are modified and 2) the ability of the proposer to handle downstream customer inquiries and issues independently of LSST.
            Hide
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment -

            Thanks Kian-Tat Lim I added 2 bullets in LDM-723: 

            2.5.4: 

            • Describe plans to support integration activities, both during LSST Commissioning and Early Operations, and later during the course of the survey if or when technical aspects of the broker interface are modified.

            2.5.6

            • Describe plans and processes to handle downstream user enquiries and issues independently of LSST

             

            Show
            lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - Thanks Kian-Tat Lim I added 2 bullets in LDM-723:  2.5.4:  Describe plans to support integration activities, both during LSST Commissioning and Early Operations, and later during the course of the survey if or when technical aspects of the broker interface are modified. 2.5.6 Describe plans and processes to handle downstream user enquiries and issues independently of LSST  
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - - edited

            Comments on LDM-612:

            community_brokers.tex, line 81: is there any plan to recompete broker slots during operations? How long will the project guarantee to provide an alert stream to the selected brokers for? Will brokers be monitored for quality of service during the operational era? All of these things can be specified by an MOU with the selected brokers, but it would seem fair to at least set some expectations here.  (Please ignore, I found an answer to this one)

            community_brokers.tex, line 100: what if no viable proposal for such a broker is received?

            community_brokers.tex, line 191: LSO-011 hasn't been published, is still marked as draft, and the preferred version on Docushare (which isn't linked to) is meaningless. I think it's fine to cite it, but it would be wise to add a disclaimer here that it is not normative (“some possible data release scenarios are described....”).

            components.tex, line 10: I believe that the standard term is “alternate standard visit” (rather than “alternative”; see LSR-REQ-0120, although I note the DM glossary is wrong). And I think this is a perfectly respectable term which doesn't deserve scare quotes!

            components.tex, line 73: the text at this line is not new, but the comment re “five full streams” a couple of lines below is. I think (but am on a cell phone, so can't easily check) that the baseline is “five full streams”, and “10 Gbps” is just an implementation detail.

            data_rights.tex, line 3: LDO-13 is still very much in draft, and, indeed, the version cited is stamped “DRAFT; NOT YET APPROVED”. Please retain the “which is in development at this writing” caveat (or add something equivalent).

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - - edited Comments on LDM-612: community_brokers.tex , line 81: is there any plan to recompete broker slots during operations? How long will the project guarantee to provide an alert stream to the selected brokers for? Will brokers be monitored for quality of service during the operational era? All of these things can be specified by an MOU with the selected brokers, but it would seem fair to at least set some expectations here.   (Please ignore, I found an answer to this one) community_brokers.tex , line 100: what if no viable proposal for such a broker is received? community_brokers.tex , line 191: LSO-011 hasn't been published, is still marked as draft, and the preferred version on Docushare (which isn't linked to) is meaningless. I think it's fine to cite it, but it would be wise to add a disclaimer here that it is not normative (“some possible data release scenarios are described....”). components.tex , line 10: I believe that the standard term is “alternate standard visit” (rather than “alternative”; see LSR-REQ-0120, although I note the DM glossary is wrong). And I think this is a perfectly respectable term which doesn't deserve scare quotes! components.tex , line 73: the text at this line is not new, but the comment re “five full streams” a couple of lines below is. I think (but am on a cell phone, so can't easily check) that the baseline is “five full streams”, and “10 Gbps” is just an implementation detail. data_rights.tex , line 3: LDO-13 is still very much in draft, and, indeed, the version cited is stamped “DRAFT; NOT YET APPROVED”. Please retain the “which is in development at this writing” caveat (or add something equivalent).
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Comments on LDM-723:

            • “Bandwidth” is singular; don't say “Bandwidth for at least five full streams are required to be supported”.
            • Will the project act as a “matchmaker” between “direct stream access” and “downstream” brokers? (Otherwise, the incentives for brokers which aren't requesting direct stream access to actually bother submitting proposals seem pretty minimal.)
            • I'll note that reviewing and selecting brokers during the summer — when folks will typically have vacations, and we'll be dealing with two major reviews and the Project & Community Workshop — may be challenging. However, I imagine this schedule is set by the SAC, so I don't expect my worries to count for much!
            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Comments on LDM-723: “Bandwidth” is singular; don't say “Bandwidth for at least five full streams are required to be supported”. Will the project act as a “matchmaker” between “direct stream access” and “downstream” brokers? (Otherwise, the incentives for brokers which aren't requesting direct stream access to actually bother submitting proposals seem pretty minimal.) I'll note that reviewing and selecting brokers during the summer — when folks will typically have vacations, and we'll be dealing with two major reviews and the Project & Community Workshop — may be challenging. However, I imagine this schedule is set by the SAC, so I don't expect my worries to count for much!
            Hide
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment -

            I pushed changes addressing most of John Swinbank's comments. The ones I didn't address in the text:

            If no viable broker offering public access is proposed? Seems unlikely given the LOIs, and part of the impetus for this line is to create incentives for such proposals.

            I agree that the motivation for downstream brokers to submit proposals is less obvious, but the SAC has requested it. The hope is that writing the proposal call this way will prompt some pre-coordination among the broker teams. Proposals from downstream brokers can therefore strengthen the proposals of direct-access brokers they have made agreements with.

            The project has largely driven the schedule to date. Historically having the SAC face-to-face meeting at the PCW has served as a good opportunity to make progress.

            Show
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment - I pushed changes addressing most of John Swinbank 's comments. The ones I didn't address in the text: If no viable broker offering public access is proposed? Seems unlikely given the LOIs, and part of the impetus for this line is to create incentives for such proposals. I agree that the motivation for downstream brokers to submit proposals is less obvious, but the SAC has requested it. The hope is that writing the proposal call this way will prompt some pre-coordination among the broker teams. Proposals from downstream brokers can therefore strengthen the proposals of direct-access brokers they have made agreements with. The project has largely driven the schedule to date. Historically having the SAC face-to-face meeting at the PCW has served as a good opportunity to make progress.
            Hide
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment -

            Finally I'll note that I made some minor updates addressing https://jira.lsstcorp.org/browse/DM-20561 that I had omitted earlier. This was just a note in LDM-723 that proposals are private, and some rewording of alert packet sizing that I incorporated with John Swinbank's comments.

            Show
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment - Finally I'll note that I made some minor updates addressing https://jira.lsstcorp.org/browse/DM-20561 that I had omitted earlier. This was just a note in LDM-723 that proposals are private, and some rewording of alert packet sizing that I incorporated with John Swinbank 's comments.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Given the urgency, the lack of opportunity for the DM-CCB to meet, and the fact that Wil O'Mullane is out, I'm unilaterally recommending this RFC on behalf of the DM-CCB.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Given the urgency, the lack of opportunity for the DM-CCB to meet, and the fact that Wil O'Mullane is out, I'm unilaterally recommending this RFC on behalf of the DM-CCB.

              People

              • Assignee:
                ebellm Eric Bellm
                Reporter:
                ebellm Eric Bellm
                Watchers:
                Eric Bellm, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim, Leanne Guy
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                4 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:
                  Planned End: