March 2006 - cddlm-wg - lists.ogf.org

RE: [cddlm] deploy API revisions
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 27 Mar '06

27 Mar '06

Hi CDDLM Community and the Team Members, I was requested by the GGF leaders to formally post the last call before the resubmission of the deployment-api spec. Please let me know before the end of the week if you have any comments. I have attached the documents that Steve posted as well as the Word document which slightly differ (file name and abstract to match other documents and original submission). Thanks, Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Loughran > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:42 AM > To: 'cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org' > Subject: [cddlm] deploy API revisions > > > Dejan (and others) > > This is the updated document. The -changes PDF highlights > where the changes have taken place; the normal PDF is the > actual document that should be used with the standard. > > The text document comments on the corrections. > > -steve >

3 5

FW: Could you send it to the CDDLM list
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 23 Mar '06

23 Mar '06

Hi Rosa, Forwarded. Dejan. -----Original Message----- From: Rosa M. Badia [mailto:rosa.m.badia@bsc.es] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:01 AM To: dejan(a)hpl.hp.com Subject: Could you send it to the CDDLM list Dejan, could you make me a favour? Could you please forward the Grid 2006 CFP to the CDDLM list? Thanks in advance, Rosa -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rosa M. Badia Barcelona Supercomputing Center Grid Computing and Clusters Manager Building Nexus II - Office 124 c/Jordi Girona 29 E08034 - Barcelona Tel. +34 - 93 413 4075 Fax. +34 - 93 413 7721 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GRID 2006 Call for Papers ============================== GRID 2006 the 7th IEEE International Conference on Grid Computing Barcelona, 28-29 September www.grid2006.org The Grid conference series is an anual international meeting that brings together a community of researchers, developers, practitioners, and users involved with Grid technology. The objective of the meeting is to serve as both the premier conference presenting best Grid research and a forum where new concepts can be introduced and explored. The previous events in this series were: Grid 2000, Bangalore, India; Grid 2001, Denver; Grid 2002, Baltimore; Grid 2003, Phoenix; Grid 2004, Pittsburgh; and the sixth event, Grid 2005 in Seattle. All of these events have been successful in attracting high quality papers and a wide international participation. Last year's event attracted about 400 registered participants. From the second event through the sixth, we have been known i as the Grid Workshop affiliated with the Supercomputing SC conference series. For this, our seventh event, we will convene our first meeting as a conference and this year we will be co-located with the 2006 Cluster conference. The proceedings of the first three workshops were published by Springer-Verlag, and the proceedings of the three most recent workshops were published by the IEEE Computer Society Press. We expect this year's proceedings will join those of the last three years in the IEEE Computer Society's Digital Library. Grid 2006 has been labelled a CoreGRID event. SCOPE ====== Grid 2006 topics of interest (in no particular order) include, but are not limited to: * Internet-based Computing Models * Applications, including eScience and eBusiness Applications * Distributed and Large-Scale Data Access and Management * Middleware and Toolkits * Monitoring, Management and Organization Tools * Resource Management and Scheduling * Networking * Virtual Instrumentation * Metadata, Ontologies, and Provenance * Creation and Management of Virtual Enterprises and Organizations * Architectures and Fabrics * Information Services * Security Issues * Programming Models, Tools, and Environments * Grid Economy * Autonomic and Utility Computing on Global Grids * Performance Evaluation and Modeling * Cluster and Grid Integration Issues * Scientific, Industrial and Social Implications Technical Papers ================ Grid 2006 invites authors to submit original and unpublished work (also not submitted elsewhere for review) reporting solid and innovative results in any aspect of grid computing and its applications. Papers should not exceed 8 single-spaced pages of text using 10-point size type on 8.5 x 11 inch paper (see IEEE author instructions, a LaTeX style sheet and Word format is available, too). All bibliographical references, tables, and figures must be included in these 8 pages. Submissions that exceed the 8-page limit will not be reviewed. Authors should submit a PDF file that will print on a PostScript printer. Submission implies the willingness of at least one of the authors to register and present the paper. Proceedings: All papers selected for this conference are peer- reviewed and will be published as a separate proceedings. After the event, the papers will also be published in the IEEE Xplore and the CS digital library. For author instructions see http://www.computer.org/cspress/instruct.htm Special Issue: The best 6 to 8 papers from the conference will be selected for journal length extension and their publication in a special issue of the Future Generation Computing Systems (FGCS). Important Dates =============== 1 March 2006 Paper submission site open 7 April 2006 Full paper submission due 14 April 2006 Last date for paper updates before review process 9 June 2006 Acceptance notification 1 July 2006 Camera-ready copy due 28-29 Sept 2006 Conference Conference Organization ======================= General co-Chairs Andrew Grimshaw, University of Virginia, USA Rosa M. Badia, Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Spain Program Chair Dennis Gannon, Indiana University, USA Program Vice Chairs Applications: Satoshi Matsuoka, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan Data Management: Beth Plale, Indiana University, USA Networking/Security/Infrastructure: Olle Mulmo, Center for Parallel Computers, KTH Sweeden Scheduling/Resource management: Jarek Nabrzyski, Poznan Supercomputing Center, Poland Tools/Software/Middleware: Ian Taylor, Cardiff University, UK Publicity Chair: Julita Corbalan, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain Proceedings Chair: Rajkumar Buyya, University of Melbourne, Australia Finance Chair: Craig Lee, The Aerospace Corporation, USA Local arrangements chair: Toni Cortes, Barcelona Supercomputing Center, Spain Tutorial Chair: Salim Hariri, University of Arizona, USA Steering Committee ================== Chair: Craig Lee, Aerospace Corp., USA Mark Baker, University of Portsmouth, UK Rajkumar Buyya, University of Melbourne, Australia Wolfgang Gentzsch, D-Grid, Germany Daniel S. Katz, JPL/Caltech, USA Manish Parashar, Rutgers University, USA Heinz Stockinger, University of Vienna, Austria

1 0

RE: [cddlm] what to do about <import namespace>
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 23 Mar '06

23 Mar '06

I've added you as a project member. Please let me know if you want me to add Ayla and other team members. Thanks, Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Loughran > Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:52 AM > Cc: 'cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org' > Subject: Re: [cddlm] what to do about <import namespace> > > Guilherme Mauro Germoglio Barbosa / Projeto Ourgrid - Projeto > Ourgrid/LSD wrote: > > > Unfortunately, my profile has no permissions to comment on the CDL > > Spec Revisions. Can you make me able to do this? I want to add a > > comment on > > https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1545 . My user name is: > > germoglio > > I think stuart or dejan are the people with the rights to > fiddle with permissions there > >

1 0

Sick, will slowly follow-up to all communication
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 23 Mar '06

23 Mar '06

Hi, I have a bad case of flu and I will slowly start relping to your emails, but expect deays. Sorry about that. Hanks, Dejan.

1 0

RE: [gf-chairs] GGF17 Session Request & Charter Update deadlines Friday 17 March
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 20 Mar '06

20 Mar '06

Hi, I have requested only one session at GGF17, focused on interoperability. If you want more, this is the last moment to say so. Also, a reminder that I will **not** host a CDDLM session this coming Wednesday. If you need a session, please schedule it separately. Thanks, Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:57 PM > To: 'cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org' > Subject: FW: [gf-chairs] GGF17 Session Request & Charter > Update deadlines Friday 17 March > > Hi Team, > > At this time, it is unclear who will attend GGF17. Only Jun > is committed. Steve and Ayla (and the UFCG team) will not > attend, and Stuart and I are not confirmed. However, we have > a deadline to request session slots by this Friday. I suggest > that we minimize the slots to 1 or 2, dedicated to > interoperability. If Jun is the only present, he can talk > about it and give update by other team members. > > Any comments, other suggestions? > > Thanks, > > Dejan. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-gf-chairs(a)ggf.org > [mailto:owner-gf-chairs@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Joel Replogle > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:58 AM > To: gf-chairs(a)ggf.org > Subject: [gf-chairs] GGF17 Session Request & Charter Update > deadlines Friday 17 March > > GGF Chairs - This is a reminder that the deadline for > submitting session requests for GGF17, as well as updating > your group's living charter is tomorrow, Friday, 17 March. > > If your group is planning one or more sessions for GGF17, > please make sure you request those sessions by tomorrow! The > direct link to do this is: > http://www.ggf.org/gf/session_request/ > > Also, please update your groups milestones and other charter > information using this link: > http://www.ggf.org/gf/group_info/charter.php > > For both of these web forms you will need to log in using > your current Gridforge username/password. > > Thanks, > > Joel > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > ----------- > Joel Replogle - Manager of Standards, Global Grid Forum > replogle(a)ggf.org http://www.ggf.org > >

1 0

FW: [gf-chairs] GGF17 Session Request & Charter Update deadlines Friday 17 March
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 16 Mar '06

16 Mar '06

Hi Team, At this time, it is unclear who will attend GGF17. Only Jun is committed. Steve and Ayla (and the UFCG team) will not attend, and Stuart and I are not confirmed. However, we have a deadline to request session slots by this Friday. I suggest that we minimize the slots to 1 or 2, dedicated to interoperability. If Jun is the only present, he can talk about it and give update by other team members. Any comments, other suggestions? Thanks, Dejan. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gf-chairs(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-gf-chairs@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Joel Replogle Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:58 AM To: gf-chairs(a)ggf.org Subject: [gf-chairs] GGF17 Session Request & Charter Update deadlines Friday 17 March GGF Chairs - This is a reminder that the deadline for submitting session requests for GGF17, as well as updating your group's living charter is tomorrow, Friday, 17 March. If your group is planning one or more sessions for GGF17, please make sure you request those sessions by tomorrow! The direct link to do this is: http://www.ggf.org/gf/session_request/ Also, please update your groups milestones and other charter information using this link: http://www.ggf.org/gf/group_info/charter.php For both of these web forms you will need to log in using your current Gridforge username/password. Thanks, Joel ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------- Joel Replogle - Manager of Standards, Global Grid Forum replogle(a)ggf.org http://www.ggf.org

1 0

FW: [cddlm] Revised CDL for BLAST slides (Re: Proposed agenda for March 15th call)
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Hi Hiro and the Teams, We discussed your presentation at the CDDLM meeting. We have questions about the following aspects: 1. The presented comparison is a little bit of apples-to-oranges. We are comparing a job submission with the deployment tool. What exactly do we want to accomplish? For example, should we provide a list of "JSDL document does not include" as an equivalent to slide 6 in the last presentation you have sent? 2. You start from a radically simple case, which does not emphasize any of the CDL features: dependencies, lazy evaluation, naming, etc. You do not even have the need to deploy the BLAST application, it is stored in a well know location on the local system. Should we not expand it for where there is a need for deployment? 3. Is this example good enough for you? What about other more complex scenarios? Do you plan to introduce them. I think for balanced evaluation, you may want to address two scenarios upfront and how they are addressed by both tools. In a summary, how should we take it further? Should we extend the example you had with what CDL does? Should we target the F2F for this purpose? Thanks, Dejan. Also, I include the follow-up message From Jun Tatemura, which further clarifies: I went through the newer version of CDLforBLAST slides. My understanding on this slides is that they expect CDDLM/CDL to deploy (configure) - application binary (installation of blast binary and required environment) - file system (mount file system) - database (setup -- I don't know details on what must be set up...) - environment variables and let JSDL do the rest. If so, what we can do would be: (1) first, we want to confirm that this is the line they want to draw (--> your question 1 comes here. It this what they mean?) (2) if we agree on the line, then we would like to have more information on the requirement (and/or assumed environment) to deploy the above so that we can design CDDLM components for this use case. (--> your questions 2,3 are aligned with this - how much we should extend the deployment requirements from the base case (where everything is already available)) (3) Once we have components, we can write CDL and discuss how CDL and JSDL interact. Thanks, Jun > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf > Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 9:18 PM > To: OGSA WG; cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [cddlm] Revised CDL for BLAST slides (Re: Proposed agenda for > March 15th call) > > Hi all, > > I've added Chris Smith's comments to CDL for BLAST slides, Let's > review this at this OGSA-WG call tomorrow. > > It is also uploaded to gridforge; > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/CDL_for_BLAST > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on > March 15th > > Wednesday from 4pm to 6pm (CST). > > > > Dial-in numbers for Wednesday: > > Free: +1-888-452-0308 > > Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505 > > PIN: 71815 > > > > Screen share service will be provided. > > URL: http://ogsa.glance.net > > Session key: 0315 > > See more explanation: > > > http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.ht > > ml > > > > 1) Early discussion (20 min) > > Note taker assignment > > Roll call > > Telecon minutes approval (if available) > > Agenda bashing > > > > 2) April F2F meeting update (20 min) > > > > F2F meeting venue is Intel@Santa Clara & Fujitsu@Sunnyvale. > > The updated session schedule is uploaded to GridForge: > > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/200604F2F_sessio > > n > > > > In order to have general EMS discussion before > CDDLM session, > > is it possible to switch these two sessions? > > a) joint CDDLM-WG session (Apr. 5 Wed. 1:30-4:30pm) > > b) EMS architecture session (Apr. 6 Thu. 9am-12:30pm) > > > > 3) joint CDDLM-WG discussion (60 min) > > > > From the minutes of joint F2F meeting in Athens; > > > >> ACTION: Steven Newhouse to write up a first draft of a few more > >> scenarios on the relationship between JSDL and CDL. > >> - To be included in the current EMS scenarios document. > - To be > >> delivered by mid-March > >> - Review on an OGSA call and continue refinement > >> > >> ** Whiteboard list produced during the discussion > >> > >> - Duplication of JSDL in CDL? > >> - Directory/user creation > >> - What is the difference between [job / application / > container] > >> configuration] > >> - Where is line between JSDL and CDL and is it policy specific > >> - Job lifecycle including deployment and start/stop > > > > > > Steven will send out revised version of his > "interaction between > > CDDLM & JSDL" scenarios before the call. > > > > Revised "CDL for BLAST" slides attached. > > > > 4) Wrap up (10 min) > > AOB > > > > <NEXT CALL> > > March 20 (Mon): OGSA-HPC profile (Marvin) March 22 (Wed): Security > > Architecture (Takuya and Frank) March 27 (Mon): EMS scenarios, > > Steven's scenarios review, > > Information Model, Ellen's CIM profile > review March 29 > > (Wed): F2F preparation > > > > Telecon schedule: > > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule > > / > > >

1 0

RE: [cddlm] deploy API revisions
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

BTW Steve, They require us to submit the Word document so that they (editor) can edit it. Can you please also pass the word document? I can pass the ntoe that you do not prefer it to be edited because of the compatibility (is this still an issue?). Thanks, Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Loughran > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:42 AM > To: 'cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org' > Subject: [cddlm] deploy API revisions > > > Dejan (and others) > > This is the updated document. The -changes PDF highlights > where the changes have taken place; the normal PDF is the > actual document that should be used with the standard. > > The text document comments on the corrections. > > -steve >

1 0

RE: [cddlm] deploy API revisions
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Hi, Many thanks! I will go ahead and submit the document. Best regards, Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Loughran > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 7:42 AM > To: 'cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org' > Subject: [cddlm] deploy API revisions > > > Dejan (and others) > > This is the updated document. The -changes PDF highlights > where the changes have taken place; the normal PDF is the > actual document that should be used with the standard. > > The text document comments on the corrections. > > -steve >

1 0

deploy API revisions
by Steve Loughran 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Dejan (and others) This is the updated document. The -changes PDF highlights where the changes have taken place; the normal PDF is the actual document that should be used with the standard. The text document comments on the corrections. -steve Overall, these comments are a welcome application of rigorousness to the use of the RFC2119 keywords to the document, highlighting when they are not used where they are needed, and indicated places where their use is inappropriate. with one exception all of the changes are minor, and do not change any of the semantics of the specification, merely reduce ambiguity. The biggest change is in section 7.2.1, in which the "scheme" element representing a URL scheme was misspelled as "schema". This is part of the public deployment API XML Schema: changing it will affect the implementations, but not the semantics of the actual implementation. Members of all four implementation teams were consulted over the change, and agreed that it was minor and that it should take place immediately. In the process of updating the document I also -changed the date to 2006 -updated the copyright years -corrected an error in which a code sample had merged with the following paragraph, and was not marked as code. ---------------------- The following is my comments on the 2005-09-13 draft of the Deployment API. The comment format is similar to the Aardvark Comment Format described in the following page: http://www.opengroup.org/austin/aardvark/format.html @ page 10 section 3.4.3.3 Extra deployment options Problem: In the 1st item of the bullet list, the following sentence: Every option is named by a URI. does not contain RFC2119 keyword. To fix: Change the sentence as follows: Every option MUST be named by a URI. -fixed as advised. @ page 10 section 3.4.3.3 Extra deployment options Problem: In the 7th item of the bullet list, the following sentence: Options MAY be processed in any order. "MAY" is inappropriate in a list of requirements. To fix: Use "may" instead of "MAY" and change the order of the sentences, as follows: Options MUST NOT require a specific order of processing. Options may be processed in any order. -fixed as advised. @ page 11 section 3.5 WS-DM Integration Problem: The 2nd sentence of the 1sst paragraph says: Both Portal and System endpoints support the MUWS ResourceId and ManageabilityCapability attributes ... It is unclear whether it is a requirement or not. To fix: If it is a requirement, use "MUST", such as: Both Portal and System endpoints MUST support ... -fixed as advised. @ page 13 section 4.2.2 Portal Endpoint Operations Problem: In the description of the "Create" operation, the following sentence: hostname is OPTIONAL. is inappropriate because the "OPTIONAL" in RFC2119 keyword means that "an implementation can choose whether to implement the feature or not". An optional parameter is not "OPTIONAL" in RFC2119's sense. To fix: Change the sentence to: hostname is optional. -fixed as advised. Also changed the text in section 6.2.1 as advised above. @ page 13 section 4.2.2 Portal Endpoint Operations here and also at page 15 section 4.3.2 System Endpoint Operations Problem: Typo. The operation name "GetResourceProperties" should be "GetResourceProperty". To fix: Change "GetResourceProperties" to "GetResourceProperty". @ page 14 section 4.3.1 System Endpoint Properties -fixed as advised. Problem: The "Meaning" column of the property "api:StartedTime" says "Time system was *terminated*." Is it intentional? To fix: If the property indicates "started" time, say so. BTW, when a system is "started"? After receiving "Initialize" message, or "Run" message, or otherwise? The word "started" must also be clarified. -fixed by changing the sentence to "Time system moved into the running state.". @ page 19 section 6.2.1 AddFile Problem: In the AddFile operation, the word "schema" is used to indicate the first part of the URL/URI (e.g. "http" in "http://www.example.com/";). However, RFCs defining URL/URI format (RFC1738 and RFC2396) uses the word "scheme" for that part. To fix: Change "schema" to "scheme". -fixed as advised. Updated the XSD document in the repository, and in the appendix. @ page 22 section 6.2.7 Destroy Problem: In the 2nd paragraph, "MAY NOT" is used. However, in RFC2119, "MAY NOT" is undefined and its use is confusing to the readers. You may not use "MAY NOT". In general, "MAY" means "allowed to do". Negation of "MAY" ("MAY NOT") will mean "not allowed (prohibited)" but such a sense is properly indicated by the use of "MUST NOT". If you want to say "allowed not to do", "need not" or "not required to do" will work. In this specific case, "MAY" is used to indicate *possibility*. However, "MAY" in RFC2119 only indicates *permission* to implementations. In such a case lowercase "may" may be appropriate. To fix: Change "as it MAY NOT be valid" to "as it may be invalid". -fixed as advised. [END]

1 0