Folks, Thank you for participating the F2F meeting. I believe we had a heated discussion to synchronize what we have in mind and gained a good progress toward the GGF14. I also express special appreciations to those who joined over the phone line in late evening to discuss about the NAREGI PSE integration. Attached are the Issues List we reviewed at the end of the meeting and the action items list extracted. I have added one issue at the head of the list and numbered each of the AIs (action items). Everyone please point if there is any to be corrected by the regular call this week. I'm planning to put them in tracker in acs-wg project page, once we have verified. Thanks for your contributions! -Keisuke P.S. I wrote to Dejan of CDDLM about the joint session at GGF14 to discuss about interface between CDDLM and ACS, and got a positive answer to meet together. I will request a session to invite his team. Milojicic, Dejan S wrote:
Hi Keisuke,
I am fully supportive. Would you like to schedule a session and make sure to specify that there be no conflict with other CDDLM sessions?
Thanks,
Dejan.
Title: Issues on the ACS specification. (Rev. 20050523) Date: May 23, 2005 Created by: Keisuke Fukui - Clarify the requirements on version control. - Demonstrate the recommended interface between ACS and CDDLM - 'addFile' interface in the deployment API looks to be a candidate contact point with ACS, for example, "register" interface of ARI. - where the ACS interfaces should stand in the CDDLM's lifecycle model. AI-1: Sachiko, to post the proposed sequence for interaction. AI-2: All, to make comment on the sequence. AI-3: Tom, to propose a name for interfaces (functions) - Demonstrate the recommended interface between ACS and NAREGI type deployment engine. i.e. separate archives for different binary from the same source code, or in multiple binaries in a single archive. conclusion: flat description of the archive will work. AI-4: Tom, to send SDD hierarchy to NAREGI PSE team. - Decide the detail service interface for ACS (ARI). - Find the interoperability target and scope in other grid activity. e.g. EGEE, omii, etc. We need a research on possibilities. conclusion: pursue only when European grid is OGSA based. - Find appropriate candidates for reference implementations. AI-5: Tom, to ask David Martin about ref. implementation. - Collect use case descriptions to be shown in the spec. conclusion: Current one is suffice. AI-6: All, to review the current one. - Find values and issues in storing (caching) the input and output data pairs through the lifecycle of the multiple executions of the application. conclusion: postponed. - Decide the minimum set of requirements on security specification in ACS. AI-7: Mike, to make a research on authentication/authorization. AI-8: Pete, to make a research on signature/integrity. - Find the appropriate level of the security description in ACS specification regarding to overview, requirements and/or normative specifications. See above. - Define the relationship of the SDD specification and ACS specification AI-9: Tom, to update the section of AAF. - Converge the Archive Descriptor schema into IUDD schema in SDD TC. See above. - Define the collaborate with OASIS SDD TC. - Archive standard will be output from SDD standardization. How can we contribute to it, to archive the common format for the grid deployment. Probably we should discuss Grid specific consideration at ACS, then report our outcome to the SDD TC. See above. - Repository interface standard for Grid system will be output from GGF ACS. - Define the collaboration with other (expected) GGF WGs such as OGSA design teams. BEM? Open Issues in Strawman Draft of the ACS Spec. - More appropriate name and its abbreviation for Application Archive (AA). [3.1 Definition of Application Archive] - Details of Register interface, and method of uploading the entity to be registered. [5.1.1 Register] - Details of Remove interface. [5.2.2 Remove] - How to specify the Application Content in getContent interface. [5.2.3 GetContent] - Whether the putContent interface is necessary or not. [5.2.4 PutContent] - Details of events. [5.3.1 event of AA updating and 5.3.2 event of AA deletion] - List up and details of types of Application Contents. [6.4 Application Contents] - Clean up the relationship with DCML. [7.3.1 DCML] - Details of security [8 Security Consideration] - Details of samples [9 Samples] - Details of schema definition [10 Schema Definition] Title: Action Items (Rev. 20050523) Date: May 23, 2005 Created by: Keisuke Fukui
From the "Issues List": AI-1: Sachiko, to post the proposed sequence for interaction. AI-2: All, to make comment on the sequence. AI-3: Tom, to propose a name for interfaces (functions) AI-4: Tom, to send SDD hierarchy to NAREGI PSE team. AI-5: Tom, to ask David Martin about ref. impl. AI-6: All, to review the current one. AI-7: Mike, to make a research on authentication/authorization. AI-8: Pete, to make a research on signature/integrity. AI-9: Tom, to update the section of AAF.
From minutes: AI-10: Fukui, to send the request for two sessions in GGF14 by June 3. AI-11: Fukui, to add "Clarify the requirements on version control" to the issues list. AI-12: Fukui, to check the possibility of a joint session with CDDLM-WG at GGF14.