Folks,

With respect to CDDLM and WSDM being out of scope and implementation specific, are you saying that grid services such as ACS do not need to be managed or scaled by some spec so that a quality of service entity knows how to managed them? What should happen if ACS is overloaded and needs to automatically be deployed to other machine resources? You can't really make the case that CDDLM and WSDM are not relevant to *any* fundamental grid component. Perhaps I am missing the intent of the table of referenced specifications that Mike filled out.

I think that there is a fear of making one spec components of another, since it might lead to too much dependency binding and lack of decoupling. However, not enough equation reduction will lead to a potentially bloated code base and lack of management and deployment automation, two functions which are frequently sacrificed or an interoperability stumbling block to integrators. Also, one winds up with many software components using up hardware resources accomplishing the same tasks via different implementations.

But to stay on track, the question once again that I feel important to dissect is: are there fundamental or "core" services that other services are to build upon so that the whole can be managed? If so, do they go in the table. And if deployment is considered a function of management (install, start, stop, remove), deployment functions will need to exist outside of the realm of managed components within the grid, else there are circular dependencies.

Pete Ziu 571.235.0208 (c) mailto:pete@ziu.net (h) mailto:5712350208@tmomail.net (sms)

To acs-wg@ggf.org cc bcc Subject Re: [acs-wg] OGSA roadmap input Sachiko Wada <sachiko@ascade.co.jp> Sent by: owner-acs-wg@ggf.org 05/16/2005 07:13 AM ZE9 <font size=-1></font>

Hi Mike,

Thank you for writing the document.

I think the WS-RF/WS-N (or OGSA Basic Profile?) should be added to the list.

I assume that ACS (ARI) uses WS-ResourceProperty to describe an archive as a resource, WS-Naming to represent a reference to an archive, and WS- BaseFault to define fault messages. I mean, these specs are used in the service definition (wsdl); i.e. the ACS spec depends on these specs. I am not sure whether WS-ResourceLifetime and WS-Notification are mandatory or not. Perhaps WS-Notification is not mandatory. But these kinds of detailed discussion may not be required in the roadmap document.

I have no idea about any other standards at this moment. Will we refer to the CDDLM in our spec? How about security issues?

In order to deploy or/and manage ACS service, the ACS service may implement the CDDLM or/and WSDM interface, but I believe this is an implementation matter and out of the ACS spec's scope.

Other comments:

- The title of the chapter is "OGSA normative interface schedule" and the word "interface" reminds me of Web Service portType. But It seems that

word interface is used in the broader sense because JSDL is also included in this chapter. If so, I think it should better be described explicitly that we are going to discuss about the archive format for the grid application as well.

- I assume that the Business Grid is also a expected user. (It needs Keisuke's confirmation, though.)

Sachiko

At Sat, 14 May 2005 12:18:37 -0400, Michael Behrens wrote:

...

The list of specifications needs to be expanded perhaps. I am a little confused too on what kind of standards need to be listed. I presume it should be those which the specification depends, not the implementation. Suggestions?

I changed the "Excepted Users" section to say:

The ACS specification, to be developed by the ACS-WG, is expected to be use initially by the NAREGI project in Japan. Generally, any job execution management implementations can begin using the specification by recognizing the ACS namespace for application content references and invoking the services to obtain the application and data.

I'd like to get this to Jem before Monday's OGSA telecon.

Ziu, Peter wrote:

...

Mike, thanks for taking the initiative to get things started. Looks

good, but I am unfamiliar with the dates and status of WS-Naming and Solution Installation. I presume you have referenced those dates to check schedule fit, or is this the purpose of the roadmap folks to help sort out?

...

...

What about specifications that any grid service need to implement? Do

we mention these in the "referenced specifications"? Is ACS considered a grid managed service? There are many potential circular dependency issues to work out if so; i.e., if I am a service within the grid container,

Sorry, this missed the group email list... Pete Ziu 571.235.0208 (c) mailto:pete@ziu.net (h) mailto:5712350208@tmomail.net (sms) the then

I must reference and utilize certain base specification implementations that all grid managed services must so that I can be started, stopped, restarted, installed, removed, scaled and de-scaled. If ACS is a service dependency to any of the just mentioned functions then we are awash in chicken/egg issues (what comes first, the chicken or the egg), and will we need to sort these out in order to produce the "referenced specifications" table.

...

...

Pete

-----Original Message----- From: owner-acs-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-acs-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf Of Michael Behrens Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 9:22 PM To: acs-wg@ggf.org Subject: [acs-wg] OGSA roadmap input

Team, We need to provide some input to the OGSA roadmap document before next wednesday. (I presumed we would like to be listed in the roadmap) I wrote up a draft and am attaching it for your review and input. This is the template document and I only changed section 4.1.

Please check the table of dates that I derived from the charter too. Thanks.

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