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

RE: [cddlm] Our Portal EPR is available!
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 20 Apr '06

20 Apr '06

Congratulations! Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] > On Behalf Of Flávio Roberto Santos / OurGrid Project > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 5:32 AM > To: cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [cddlm] Our Portal EPR is available! > > Hi people, > > Our Portal EPR is available for testing at > http://cddlm.lsd.ufcg.edu.br:8080/muse/services/Portal > > -- > > Flavio Roberto Santos > Undergraduate student at Universidade Federal de Campina > Grande OurGrid Team Member - www.ourgrid.org My webpage - > http://www.ourgrid.org/~flavio > > -- > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are > not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not > refer to reality." > -- Albert Einstein > >

4 4

Notes from the meeting on 4/19
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

Attendees: Ayla, Flavio, Guilherme, Steve, Stuart Note taker: Dejan Ayla: Made some changes to the deployment API so they are aligned now. Will do some other changes and will start to test. Not sure if Steve is on-line. Flavio is working on implementing he test for component model. Steve: Making his portal up and running. Some of the tests are passing. Next, he will start interop testing against Ayla's and NEC's endpoints. He will take his endpoint home and export it. If his client talk does not talk to Ayla's he will email the team. Stuart: He has problems resolving other endpoints, with NEC, but made more progress towards Ayla's. Their endpoint will not be up until he can work with others. His endpoint is most complex. Jun: Has his endpoint from home, but has problems to connect because of the presumably firewalls problems. He will discuss this with Satish. Steve used some port scanner from Google and can check even from behind his firewall, this was the fastest way he found problems. Dejan asks a question: how far are we from victory and how do we define victory. Steve does not know at this time. Still too early. Stuart needs to talk to his team to find out how long it will take. One of the core issues is native addressing mode inside of the framework, investigating solutions to avoid re-writing his own stack (Steve did that). Will know by the end of this week. Stuart uses serial (sp?) for his real trace. Steve uses WS-Pocket SOAP (sp?). Stuart: Those complicate addressing, it is modifying the end point. It is much easier to do TCP dump. The question is in defining interop. Two endpoints up to test against. Keeping a record on when other people were able to run the tests against others. We will explore the Wiki for documenting. Steve was making some minor changes to deployment API tests. Added new, others moved to optional (those that are not mandatory to spec). He will check this out and email tonight. OGSA - CDDLM discussion Jun: let's suppose that we either specify the host name or do this at the run-time. The question can we do this either or. Steve: In SmartFrog, they do not define the schema value that gets defined at the run-time. It is up to individual components how to act on it. Stuart, Steve (to be confirmed), and Jun will attend the OGSA meeting tomorrow (4/20 and discuss the OGSA and CDDLM relationship). The notes from the OGSA CDDLM are included below. Thanks, Dejan. > From EMS point of view, we need to define a set of common component > models, as they do exist in current implementations, but not in a > published definition document. In other words there is no standard > definition of such common components. > Action: Hiro and Jun will look at what needs to be provided and make a > proposal to the group. > The group discusses the consequences for a CDL enabled system when the > user submits a JSDL document with either a specific host name or no > host name at all, in an environment where the component model in the > CDL system provides CDL templates with cdl:lazy host binding. > Jun explained that this issue was not discussed before and the current > specification would not allow for a CDL definition that has the host > as cdl:lazy and for that value to be supplied by the caller of the > Deployment Service. > Action: Jun and Dejan will take this issue back to the CDDLM-WG for > discussion. > The group discusses the roles and responsibilities of where to define > how to deploy a particular application and which information is needed > to do so, and where or which instance is to provide this concrete > information to enable a successful deployment of a requested > application > Action: Steven will update the scenarios with the comments from this > review and merge into the draft Scenarios document

1 0

FW: BMC, Fujitsu, IBM, HP launch CMDB initiative - Computer Business Review
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

Hi Team, Please take a look at the announcement below. I would like to dsicuss this at the next call. Best regards, Dejan. http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=02939C6A-3F74-4A2B-AAB9-4 1E43DF7C3B5 <<BMC, Fujitsu, IBM, HP launch CMDB initiative - Computer Business Review.url>>

1 0

We will have the regular CDDL meeting in a few minutes, with usual numbers...
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

... the main agenda topics are: 1) Update on interoperability 2) OGSA and CDDLM (see earlier email by Jun). Thanks, Dejan.

1 0

RE: [cddlm] issue on a component property value
by Stuart Schaefer 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

Jun, It is unclear to me what a simple use case for this would look like. These seem to be conflicting requirements, not a single complementary one. You could define the CDL language to allow a default value for a lazy parameter, thus eliminating the lazy resolution. I think that it is dangerous to modify the component model to define how it interprets CDL. The CDL language should be defined clearly and separately from the component model. To date, the component model has only define normative schema elements to be used as valid CDL. Stuart -----Original Message----- From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Jun Tatemura Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 5:58 PM To: 'cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org' Subject: [cddlm] issue on a component property value Dear team, In the F2F discussion with OGSA team, we had a question on our specs. We promised that we will discuss in the WG. [Q] Can a component have a parameter such that (1) sometimes the user want to specify a value but (2) sometimes the user want the component to specify the value dynamically (as a default value). In fact, it is not obvious from the current component model or CDL. A default value of a component property can be introduced, for example, as param2 in the following component description, Component1. If the user extends this template without specifying a value on param2, 100 is used as a default value. However, how can a dynamic value be default? <Component1> <cmp:CommandPath .../> <cmp:CodeBase .../> <param1 cdl:lazy="true"/> <param2>100</param2> <Component1> For a dynamic value, we use @cdl:lazy. When param1 is assigned by the component, we should specify @cdl:lazy so that any reference to this property is resolved at run time. However, specifying @cdl:lazy at a property does not mean that the component MUST/SHOULD assign a value to the property. It does not mean that the user MUST NOT/SHOULD NOT assign a value either. In fact, CDL does not have any notion on a role who assigns values (such as users, systems, components, etc). For CDL, it is fine if the user assign the value to a property with @cdl:lazy. CDL only cares when a reference to the property is resolved. In this sense, the question to the answer can be 'yes' - the user can assign the value to the above param1. But we do not know whether the value is used by the component (or just ignored). In CDL, we cannot say if a component allows the user to specify a specific property. In fact, in the early design discussion, we were discussing @cdl:use="readonly" for that purpose: <param1 cdl:lazy="true" cdl:use="readonly" /> For some reason (I don't remember), we have removed this from the spec. This means that (1) any reference to this property is resolved at run time (2) you cannot override this property by inheritance -- in a component model, this means that the value can be assigned only by the component (the user is not allowed to assign the value) A possible solution would be one of the following: [1] CDL-level solution: add "readonly" as a value of @cdl:use [2] Component-level solution: extend the component model specification so that one can specify how a property is used by a component. [3] Application-level solution: just let it unspecified (as is) and think this as a semantic level matter the component model does not care.

1 0

NEC Labs interoperability test portal EPR is ready
by Satish 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

Hi All, Our interoperability test portal is ready and can be accessed at http://cddlm.nec-labs.com:9090/cddlm/services/portal Also, there's a notification test portal at : http://cddlm.nec-labs.com:9090/pubscribe/notifconsumer.jsp (can be used to test some portal notifications) Since we are hosting this portal from our Princeton(NJ) office, we didn't have a choice but to host it on the server that was given to us. So, due to the server's slowness, some requests such as 'create system' may take long time to complete. Cheers, Satish

2 1

issue on a component property value
by Jun Tatemura 19 Apr '06

19 Apr '06

Dear team, In the F2F discussion with OGSA team, we had a question on our specs. We promised that we will discuss in the WG. [Q] Can a component have a parameter such that (1) sometimes the user want to specify a value but (2) sometimes the user want the component to specify the value dynamically (as a default value). In fact, it is not obvious from the current component model or CDL. A default value of a component property can be introduced, for example, as param2 in the following component description, Component1. If the user extends this template without specifying a value on param2, 100 is used as a default value. However, how can a dynamic value be default? <Component1> <cmp:CommandPath .../> <cmp:CodeBase .../> <param1 cdl:lazy="true"/> <param2>100</param2> <Component1> For a dynamic value, we use @cdl:lazy. When param1 is assigned by the component, we should specify @cdl:lazy so that any reference to this property is resolved at run time. However, specifying @cdl:lazy at a property does not mean that the component MUST/SHOULD assign a value to the property. It does not mean that the user MUST NOT/SHOULD NOT assign a value either. In fact, CDL does not have any notion on a role who assigns values (such as users, systems, components, etc). For CDL, it is fine if the user assign the value to a property with @cdl:lazy. CDL only cares when a reference to the property is resolved. In this sense, the question to the answer can be 'yes' - the user can assign the value to the above param1. But we do not know whether the value is used by the component (or just ignored). In CDL, we cannot say if a component allows the user to specify a specific property. In fact, in the early design discussion, we were discussing @cdl:use="readonly" for that purpose: <param1 cdl:lazy="true" cdl:use="readonly" /> For some reason (I don't remember), we have removed this from the spec. This means that (1) any reference to this property is resolved at run time (2) you cannot override this property by inheritance -- in a component model, this means that the value can be assigned only by the component (the user is not allowed to assign the value) A possible solution would be one of the following: [1] CDL-level solution: add "readonly" as a value of @cdl:use [2] Component-level solution: extend the component model specification so that one can specify how a property is used by a component. [3] Application-level solution: just let it unspecified (as is) and think this as a semantic level matter the component model does not care.

2 1

[ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for April 20th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 18 Apr '06

18 Apr '06

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on April 20th Thursday from 8:30am - 10:30am (CDT). Thanks Ian and ANL for continue providing Thursday tele-conf bridge! Dial-in numbers for Thursday: 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: 0420 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (if available) Action Items status review (see the bottom of this email) Agenda bashing 2) HPC profile discussion (Marvin, 40 min) - Close out the use cases. - Start discussing extension mechanisms. - As part of that, discuss how the Snelling/Foster ESI design might fit into things. - Review WG charter draft 3) Joint CDDLM discussion (Jun and Dejan, 30 min) From April 6 F2F minutes; > From EMS point of view, we need to define a set of common component > models, as they do exist in current implementations, but not in a > published definition document. In other words there is no standard > definition of such common components. > Action: Hiro and Jun will look at what needs to be provided and make a > proposal to the group. > The group discusses the consequences for a CDL enabled system when > the user submits a JSDL document with either a specific host name or no > host name at all, in an environment where the component model in the > CDL system provides CDL templates with cdl:lazy host binding. > Jun explained that this issue was not discussed before and the current > specification would not allow for a CDL definition that has the host as > cdl:lazy and for that value to be supplied by the caller of the Deployment > Service. > Action: Jun and Dejan will take this issue back to the CDDLM-WG for > discussion. > The group discusses the roles and responsibilities of where to define how > to deploy a particular application and which information is needed to do > so, and where or which instance is to provide this concrete information to > enable a successful deployment of a requested application > Action: Steven will update the scenarios with the comments from this > review and merge into the draft Scenarios document 4) EMS arch scenarios document update (Steven, 30 min) 5) Wrap up AOB <*NEXT CALL*> April 20 (Thu 5-7pm CDT) OGSA webcast dry run April 24 (Mon 5-7pm CDT) Information Model (Fred and Ellen) Security (Frank) April 26 (Wed 1-2:30pm CDT) OGSA webcast on air April 27 (Thu 8:30-10:30am CDT) GGF17 preparation May 1, 4, 8 NO call GGF17 May 10-12 in Tokyo Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ <*ACTION ITEMS*> From April 10 telecon - Andreas to update OGSA web site with new teleconference information From April 7 F2F meeting - Jay/Jem/<your name here> to provide three examples of customers grid deployments/usages (without attribution/names) in two dimensions From April 6 F2F meeting - Jay check and find out relatively small funding to Globus to develop document on their security work (*deferred*) - Hiro and Jun will look at what needs to be provided as a set of common component models and make a proposal to the group. - Jun and Dejan will take this issue (with or without host name in JSDL document) back to the CDDLM-WG for discussion. - Steven will update the scenarios with the comments from this review and merge into the draft Scenarios document From April 5 F2F meeting - Webcast Participants: send bios and photo to Jem. - Marvin to send e-mail that explains concerns on compliance suite by GGF & EGA. - Manuel & Andrew to determine where/when to hold standard hierarchical namespaces discussions. From April 4 F2F meeting - Steven Newhouse to ask Jennifer Schopf on the status of the GIN modeling document. - Hiro to schedule a discussion in the OGSA F2F after the converged specs drafts are released to discuss which sets of specs to use within OGSA. (*deferred*) - Ellen will do a revised visio diagram that has only the relevant BES attributes and JSDL attributes (base it off the info_model_for_BES/BES Container class) Other - Tom: to finalize OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 doc and make a final call -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

SOAP, WSA versions
by Steve Loughran 13 Apr '06

13 Apr '06

What versions of SOAP & WSA are people using? I'd like to only support the WSA 2005/08 and SOAP1.2 namespaces, if possible... -steve

3 3

RE: [cddlm] Meeting this Wednesday....
by Stuart Schaefer 12 Apr '06

12 Apr '06

I apologize for sending this out late. I will host the conference call this morning, 9AM EST. Please use the following number: 1-877-805-0964 Or 1-913-227-1236 Participant code: 227759 Thanks, Stuart -----Original Message----- From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 10:39 AM To: cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [cddlm] Meeting this Wednesday.... Hi Team, I am traveling this week, so someone else will need to host the meeting. I think that the meeting should take place. Jun can update you on the meeting with OGSA. It did not go that well. We missed Stuart's and Steve's participation to address some intrinsic details of the component model and deployment APIs. After so much interaction with them, Steven Newhouse still has issues with how CDDLM is used. He will post his summary document shortly with specific questions. I strongly suggested that they read the specs which are already out. We can talk in more detail during the next meeting. Thanks, Dejan.

1 0