Very interesting Mike. With respect to deployment of containers, (and OS's as containers for processes like service containers), there is a potential that we have to be sensitive to, that is, autonomy in conjunction with constraints verses specifying the deployed environment through exact description. Note that abstract constraints partially specify the environment, and leave the rest to algorithms. However, as long as the constraint specification within a job description can be extremely detailed as well as abstract, and the level of detail optional, the ability to control how much autonomy vs. direct instruction can be chosen by the job description. If the reverse is done (mandatory autonomy without detailed enough constraints), those wishing more control over where/how their jobs run (say for performance tuning or security reasons) may not be able to do so. Also, the job description is something which gets consumed by some job controlling mechanism service(s), but who deployed the job controlling service, securely and in autonomous fashion or exact fashion? Pete -----Original Message----- From: owner-acs-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-acs-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf Of behrens Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:57 AM To: acs-wg@ggf.org Cc: franks@mcs.anl.gov Subject: Re: [acs-wg] GGF13 session plan Okay by me. Also - I have a few notes from Globus World which pertain to ACS: 1) Frank Siebenllist (security) mentioned in his brief a possible solution to some of the security risks: Dynamic deployment of a container (VM). This falls right in line with one of the requirements. As Frank put it: “Extremely cool stuff, I think” 2) GridPlan is an open source capability to support grid capacity and simulation. The speaker mentioned that they want to create an XML document to describe all the nodes required for an execution, so that it can perform the simulation, etc. I suggested to him to look into the ACS WG as there might be an opportunity for some synergy - if the simulate would then include an ACS component, that would be great. Also, perhaps a common XML document can be used. They might be able to provide a use case. Keisuke Fukui wrote:

Folks,

The administration requires us to upload the session material by February 18.

I believe we can update them once uploaded the doc there. As such, I'm going to upload the current version of requirement documents a part of the material to the project document manager. Please check if it is ok to upload the attached one. I updated the doc w.r.t the comments from Pete, et al.

-Keisuke

Keisuke Fukui wrote:

...

Folks,

Since the ACS-WG is officially approved, I hope we can meet at the ACS sessions at GGF13 in Seoul!

I'd like to discuss about our future plan. I think we need think about the below issues for GGF13:

- Requirements refinement (including relationship to the Solution Installation) - Usecase collection - Verifing of the Milestones and Charter - Plenary session to recruit extra people to join - Prior recruiting for the ACS-WG session itself

In addition, some logistics for GGF13 need to be found out, such as Session Plan, inviting the speakers; I guess we need expertise from security and data transport area to refine our requirements. Also, we'd like collect fair number of the usecases to justify our requirement analysis.

Having a conference call about this may accelerate the discussion, though the comments on the mailing list are also welcomed. Please let me know your idea about these. And I expect all of you can meet at the GGF13!

-Keisuke Fukui

-- Michael Behrens R2AD, LLC (571) 594-3008 (cell) *new* (703) 714-0442 (land)