Subject: CCPE Portal C551 From: "Humphreys, Steven L" Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:33:56 -0600 To: "'gcf@indiana.edu'" CC: "'randal@lanl.gov'" X-UIDL: 52fafe57ec120000 X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Received: by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (mbox gcfpc) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sun Oct 14 18:05:42 2001) X-From_: fox@mailer.csit.fsu.edu Sun Oct 14 18:05:28 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gcfpc@csit.fsu.edu Received: from dirac.csit.fsu.edu (dirac.csit.fsu.edu [144.174.128.44]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B3CF23A07 for ; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:05:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost by dirac.csit.fsu.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7) id SAA16838; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:05:27 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Message-Id: <200110142205.SAA16838@dirac.csit.fsu.edu> Delivered-To: fox@csit.fsu.edu Received: from mask.uits.indiana.edu (mask.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.6.184]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CF3523A08 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2001 00:34:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm02snlnto.sandia.gov (mm02snlnto.sandia.gov [132.175.109.21]) by mask.uits.indiana.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/IUPO) with SMTP id f914Vtr28587 for ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 23:32:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from 132.175.109.1 by mm02snlnto.sandia.gov with ESMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v4.7)); Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:33:58 -0600 X-Server-Uuid: 95b8ca9b-fe4b-44f7-8977-a6cb2d3025ff Received: from ES01SNLNT.sandia.gov (es01snlnt.sandia.gov [134.253.130.4]) by sass165.sandia.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f914Y5b10530; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:34:05 -0600 (MDT) Received: by ES01SNLNT.sandia.gov with Internet Mail Service ( 5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 30 Sep 2001 22:33:57 -0600 Message-ID: <2E714B3E290FAD4AB8D63ABD2F33BC995EA5D7@ES01SNLNT.sandia.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) X-Filter-Version: 1.3 (sass165) X-WSS-ID: 17A92DBC1213461-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-To: Geoffrey Fox Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:05:23 -0400 Resent-From: Geoffrey Fox A: General Information Please return to: Geoffrey C. Fox Electronically Preferred gcf@indiana.edu Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience Computer Science Department 228 Lindley Hall Bloomington Indiana 47405 Office Phone 8128567977(Lab), 8128553788(CS) but best is cell phone 3152546387 Fax: 8128567972 Please fill in Summary Conclusions (Sec. C) and details as appropriate in Secs. D, E and F. B: Refereeing Philosophy We encourage a broad range of readers and contributors. Please judge papers on their technical merit and separate comments on this from those on style and approach. Keep in mind the strong practical orientation that we are trying to give the journal. Note that the forms attached provide separate paper for comments that you wish only the editor to see and those that both the editor and author receive. Your identity will of course not be revealed to the author. C: Paper and Referee Metadata C: Paper and Referee Metadata Paper Number Cnnn: 551 Date: 9/30/2001 Paper Title: An Event Service to Support Grid Computational Environments Author(s): Geoffrey Fox, Shrideep Pallickara Referee: Steven Humphreys Address: Sandia National Laboratories P.O. Box 5800, MS 1137 Albuquerque, NM 87185-1137 (505) 844-7223 slhumph@sandia.gov Referee Recommendations. Please indicate overall recommendations here, and details in following sections. 1.publish as is X 2.accepted provided changes suggested are made 3.reject D: Referee Comments (For Editor Only) E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor) Technically this was an excellent paper with a very thorough treatment of the issues pertinent to Grid event services. The prototype system described, while significantly smaller than the billion node system mentioned in the introduction, was complete enough (in both hardware and software) to exercise the methods and algorithms outlined in the paper. Whether the architecture can scale in size and complexity (dynamic brokers, security, etc.) remains to be seen but this paper represents an excellent beginning. One technical point that I am curious about, is whether other routing criteria besides path length have been considered by the authors (e.g. aggregate link cost, speed). My only criticsm regarding this paper is that I think that it needs to be edited by a technical editor before it can be considered ready for publication. F: Presentation Changes N/A .