September 2006 - cddlm-wg

FW: CDDLM-WG completion criteria?
by Toft, Peter 26 Sep '06

26 Sep '06

Hi, I just want to forward to the group the following very helpful response from Stephen Pickles, regarding a question I asked about the completion criteria for CDDLM. Regards, Peter -----Original Message----- From: Stephen M Pickles [mailto:Stephen.Pickles@manchester.ac.uk] Sent: 25 September 2006 19:10 To: Toft, Peter; Hiro Kishimoto Subject: RE: CDDLM-WG completion criteria? Hi Peter, and welcome. A group is finished once it has completed its charter. (You should check that the charter still matches the group's plans). For CDDLM, I imagine this means bringing all of the specifications you list through to "Recommendation" status - that's when they become OGF standards. You're close to having "Proposed Recommendations" for these specs. A proposed recommendation is one that's been through public comment and is published in the GFD document series as a proposed recommendation. That is, it's listed on http://www.ogf.org/gf/docs/?final has a GFD number, and has "REC" in the document type column. (The document process is described in GFD.1, which you should read, if you haven't done so already.) Plenty of OGF specs are proposed recommendations. None have attained full recommendation status. I hope that CDDLM will be one of the first. To go the final mile towards getting the highest status, you need to write an experimental (EXP) document (possibly more than one, if it makes sense to treat each spec separately) which essentially prove the case that there are multiple, independent interoperable implementations of the spec(s). This EXP document becomes input to a formal review (which might involve external reviewers), on the basis of which the decision to award (or not award) recommendation status is made. What "interoperable" means to some extent has to be localised to the spec. I know from Steve Loughran that CDDLM has done a lot of work on testing interoperability, so probably you've done most of the work and just need to write it up. When you do so, imagine yourself in the position of an external reviewer. (Is the spec sound? Is it clear enough that a developer can write an implementation that "interoperates" with others from material in the spec alone? Do I believe that group has done "due diligence" in this area? Do I believe that the interoperability testing as described tests what should and can reasonably be tested? Do I have any doubts about the independence of the implementations?) What some groups are doing is writing their interop plans down in an INFO document before going about their interop work. I think this is a good practice (and a good way of getting more eyes on the approach to testing), but you're probably already beyond this for CDDLM. Most importantly, you should keep in contact with your Area Director. That's Hiro. Hope this helps, Stephen > -----Original Message----- > From: Toft, Peter [mailto:peter.toft@hp.com] > Sent: 25 September 2006 17:13 > To: Hiro Kishimoto; Stephen M Pickles > Subject: CDDLM-WG completion criteria? > > Dear Hiro, Stephen: > > As you probably know, I recently took over co-ordination of > the CDDLM-WG > from my HP colleague Dejan Milojicic. Although I was involved in the > inception of the group, I have been somewhat out of the loop for the > last couple of years so I have some catching up to do. > > What I want to check with you is what it means for CDDLM to > be 'done' -- > at least for the first pass at the standards. What we are currently > working towards is an agreed specification set: > > - CDL Language > - Deployment API > - Component Model > > All of these are complete except for a resubmission of the > revised CDL. > > To accompany each of these, we are running interoperability tests > against three separate implementations of each of the specifications. > The results of these tests will be captured in formal > documents, one for > each specification, which will be submitted to the OGF editorial > process. > > So, given acceptable versions of each of these documents and the open > source availability of some number of reference implementations, what > else is needed to bring CDDLM-WG to a graceful conclusion? > > Thanks and best regards, > Peter > >

1 0

Meeting notes: 22-Sep-2006
by Toft, Peter 25 Sep '06

25 Sep '06

Hi, Here are my brief notes from the CDDLM call last week. Present: Satish, Steve, Dejan, Peter. (Ayla tried to dial-in but was thwarted by problems with the new dial-in number.) Meeting Notes: 1) Peter checked on status of the required CDDLM deliverables: Foundation Document: complete OGF doc SmartFrog Language: complete OGF doc Component Model: complete OGF doc (but a new version may be available) Deployment API: complete OGF doc CDL specification: done, needs to be resubmitted CDL Interop Report: in progress Deployment API Interop Report: in progress Component Model Interop Report: in progress Summary: the key specification documents are complete or nearing completion as OGF documents. The focus of activity is now on interop testing across the example implementations, and documenting the results. 2) Checking on the team's availability to further contribute. Satish is available for about another month or so, Ayla and Stuart's availabilities are currently unknown (perhaps each of you could comment on this?). Steve is available for a while. We agreed that a desirable goal would be to bring things to a graceful conclusion over the next month 3) We briefly discussed whether a POSIX component was actually needed (to offer a POSIX-compliant API for deploying software components against). I am minded to avoid implementing such components as part of the base standard and to leave this as an exercise for the users of the CDDLM framework. Actions: - Jun to resubmit the CDL document this week to the OGF editors - Peter to verify 'ratification' criteria with Hiro and Steve Pickles - Ayla to forward most recent UFCG interop results [DONE] - Steve to modify the CDL interop tests to match the current spec. - Jun/Satish to update the interop document - Steve to work on Deployment API interop testing **** Next meeting: **** - Wednesday 27-Sep-2006 - 2pm UK time - Dial-in: UK: +44 1452 560 980 USA: +1 866 276 8920 Conference ID 811956 - Virtual Room: https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=RPP4VM3XSX (Ayla -- let me know if you need me to conference you in, and if so what number I should use.) Best regards, Peter

1 0

Slides for today's teleconference
by Toft, Peter 20 Sep '06

20 Sep '06

Dear CDDLM-WG, As you know, Dejan has had to withdraw from involvement in the working group due to other commitments at HP. I will try to pick up where he left off and provide co-ordination to help the team meet its goals, with a focus on finalising the deliverables that are needed for a first, complete OGF CDDLM standard set. (Btw -- for those that don't know me, I'm a project manager at HP Labs in Bristol, UK, and I manage the team of which Steve Loughran is a member.) It will take me some time to get to know the current participants in the working group, and to get myself up to speed with what's going on. I'd like to start by understanding the current status and by mapping out what is left to be done. The attached slides, which borrow heavily from Steve's presentation at GGF18, capture my current understanding. These are for discussion today. Best regards, Peter - peter.toft(a)hp.com - +44 117 312 8728 ---- Reminder of the logistics for today's call: - Wednesday, 20-Sep @ 2pm UK time - Dial-in numbers (** Note, this is new **) UK: +44 1452 560 980 USA: +1 866 276 8920 Conference ID 811956 - Virtual room: https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=RPP4VM3XSX

1 0

CDDLM teleconference tomorrow (Sep-20) [2]
by Toft, Peter 19 Sep '06

19 Sep '06

Apologies -- I made a mistake in generating the virtual room URL below. The correct link should be: https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=RPP4VM3XSX Regards, Peter ---- Hi all, There will be a CDDLM teleconference tomorrow (Weds 20 Sep) at the usual time of 2pm in the UK. (I will let you all do your own local time zone conversions in case I get it wrong!) ** Note the new dial-in details ** - UK: +44 1452 560 980 - USA: +1 866 276 8920 - Conference ID 811956 I have also set up a "virtual room" to allow the sharing of presentations, demos, etc. The room is accessed via the following link: https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=57984 Clients are provided for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In each case, a small piece of software needs to be installed on your machine. You can test your connection and install the necessary software by clicking on the link above. Best regards, Peter Toft - Project Manager - HP Labs - Bristol, UK - peter.toft(a)hp.com

1 0

CDDLM teleconference tomorrow (Sep-20)
by Toft, Peter 19 Sep '06

19 Sep '06

Hi all, There will be a CDDLM teleconference tomorrow (Weds 20 Sep) at the usual time of 2pm in the UK. (I will let you all do your own local time zone conversions in case I get it wrong!) ** Note the new dial-in details ** - UK: +44 1452 560 980 - USA: +1 866 276 8920 - Conference ID 811956 I have also set up a "virtual room" to allow the sharing of presentations, demos, etc. The room is accessed via the following link: https://www.rooms.hp.com/attend/default.aspx?key=57984 Clients are provided for Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. In each case, a small piece of software needs to be installed on your machine. You can test your connection and install the necessary software by clicking on the link above. Best regards, Peter Toft - Project Manager - HP Labs - Bristol, UK - peter.toft(a)hp.com

1 0

Delivery failure
by postmaster＠sklad10.ogf.org 15 Sep '06

15 Sep '06

System generated message - Please do not reply ---------------------------------------------- Delivery failure ---------------------------------------------- Your message has encountered delivery problems to the following recipients: www-html(a)w3.org Reason: Bad response from server : w3.org to message data. Server said : 550 Message contains malware or a virus (Worm.Mydoom.I). ---------------------------------------------- A transcript of the session follows ---------------------------------------------- * Beginning processing of domain w3.org * Domain MX record lookup succeeded * Attempting connection to aji.w3.org. succeeded <= 220 aji.w3.org ESMTP Exim 4.50 Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:14:31 +0000 => HELO sklad10 <= 250 aji.w3.org Hello sklad10 [62.118.48.58] => MAIL FROM:<cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org> <= 250 OK => RCPT TO:<www-html(a)w3.org> <= 250 Accepted => DATA <= 354 Enter message, ending with "." on a line by itself * Sending File <= 550 Message contains malware or a virus (Worm.Mydoom.I). ---------------------------------------------- Your message reads (in part): ---------------------------------------------- Received: From ggf.org (unverified [192.168.128.6]) by SMTP Server [192.168.128.10] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v5.0g) with SMTP id <0000251924@sklad10>; Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:54:32 +0400 From: cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org To: www-html(a)w3.org Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 15:11:16 +0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0003_B49F43FC.EF646D60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_B49F43FC.EF646D60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason: Your message was not delivered because the destination computer was not reachable within the allowed queue period. The amount of time a message is queued before it is returned depends on local configura- tion parameters. Most likely there is a network problem that prevented delivery, but it is also possible that the computer is turned off, or does not have a mail system running right now. Your message was not delivered within 4 days: Host 131.83.104.207 is not responding. The following recipients did not receive this message: <www-html(a)w3.org> Please reply to postmaster(a)ggf.org if you feel this message to be in error. ------=_NextPart_000_0003_B49F43FC.EF646D60 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="TRANSCRIPT.EXE" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment;

1 0

Re: [cddlm] Minutes from CDDLM wrap up session
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Thanks Steve and Satish, indeed, CDDLM is in good hands. Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: cddlm-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org > [mailto:cddlm-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Toft, Peter > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:15 AM > To: Mailing List for CDDLM-WG > Subject: Re: [cddlm] Minutes from CDDLM wrap up session > > Thank you. Good job. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: cddlm-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:cddlm-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On > Behalf > > Of Steve Loughran > > Sent: 13 September 2006 22:27 > > To: Mailing List for CDDLM-WG > > Subject: [cddlm] Minutes from CDDLM wrap up session > > > > > > Here are the slides discussed in the minutes which were skimmed over > in > > the wrap up session (most of the audience were different), with > > notes/actions attached as extra slides. > > > > -steve > -- > cddlm-wg mailing list > cddlm-wg(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/cddlm-wg >

2 1

Re: [cddlm] Minutes from CDDLM wrap up session
by Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Hi Satish, Thanks for your kind words, I had no doubts that you and Steve will handle it at the highest level. Yes, we'll have a meeting next week. At that meeting, I would like to transition responsibilities to Peter (assuming everyone is fine with this). Peter brings enormous experience to the team and he will strengthen CDDLM even further. Best regards, and one more time many thanks for the great work both you have done at GGF! Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: Satish Bhat [mailto:sbhat@sv.nec-labs.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:59 PM > To: Mailing List for CDDLM-WG > Cc: Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) > Subject: Re: [cddlm] Minutes from CDDLM wrap up session > > Hi Dejan, > Your absence was certainly felt, but somehow we managed it (did we, > Steve?) > Also, I and Steve had a discussion on the remaining tasks in > CDDLM and have identified few important tasks. I think we can > discuss it all during the next conf. call (next week?). > > > Cheers, > Satish > > > On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 09:04 -0500, Milojicic, Dejan S (HP Labs) wrote: > > Thanks Steve and Satish, indeed, CDDLM is in good hands. > > > > Dejan. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: cddlm-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org > > > [mailto:cddlm-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Toft, Peter > > > Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:15 AM > > > To: Mailing List for CDDLM-WG > > > Subject: Re: [cddlm] Minutes from CDDLM wrap up session > > > > > > Thank you. Good job. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: cddlm-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org > [mailto:cddlm-wg-bounces@ogf.org] > > > > On > > > Behalf > > > > Of Steve Loughran > > > > Sent: 13 September 2006 22:27 > > > > To: Mailing List for CDDLM-WG > > > > Subject: [cddlm] Minutes from CDDLM wrap up session > > > > > > > > > > > > Here are the slides discussed in the minutes which were skimmed > > > > over > > > in > > > > the wrap up session (most of the audience were different), with > > > > notes/actions attached as extra slides. > > > > > > > > -steve > > > -- > > > cddlm-wg mailing list > > > cddlm-wg(a)ogf.org > > > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/cddlm-wg > > > > > -- > > cddlm-wg mailing list > > cddlm-wg(a)ogf.org > > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/cddlm-wg > >

1 0

Minutes from CDDLM wrap up session
by Steve Loughran 14 Sep '06

14 Sep '06

Here are the slides discussed in the minutes which were skimmed over in the wrap up session (most of the audience were different), with notes/actions attached as extra slides. -steve

2 1

Minutes from CDDLM Interop session at GridWorld 2006.
by Steve Loughran 13 Sep '06

13 Sep '06

Notes taken by Spencer Dawkins (spencer(a)mcsr-labs.org) . I've post edited them slightly to be less critical of WS-A, since now the spec is final, its just my implementation that doesnt work. On the subject of interop, even though we're testing across the Alpine and Axis soap stacks, I'm actually the author of the fault handling logic and servlets of both systems. There could be a common error in both. Alternatively, my misunderstanding of the specs have set the defacto standard for java soap stacks. We covered both CDL and deploy api tests. There was a very nice demo by Satish, and I got to show my localhost deploying tests against the public endpoints and collecting the results. ----------- CDDLM is "Configuration Description, Deployment, and Lifecycle Management". This is the first specification on system administration issues in a Grid. The chairs for this session weren't available, so it was chaired by Steve Loughran of HP Labs in Bristol, UK. "Any applications without adequate system tests doesn't exist" - nice slide. All CDDLM applications "exist", by this definition. "Interoperation" means that we work together for a set of agreed-upon test cases. HP's "high performance datacenter" is an old laptop no one wants, hosted at home because HP's security types became violent when hearing the description of the application. It's nice that they are "behind a firewall". HP has a test set of components which are also deployable. This means we can deploy to other machines and test our machines, etc. Test cases test all mandatory (non-optional) parts of the spec. Different groups had different ideas about what was optional, so had to split up the test cases. Session included 30 tests run against NEC and HP test boxes. WSA is still troublesome. A lot of interoperability problems happen at this layer (four schema versions have been developed, for example). NEC and UFCG both interoperate successfully. Problems we have are at the top layers. HP broke own SOAP stack. some bits work, some bits don't. Publish all SOAP logs on the net as a public service - recommend this because it lets the caller see what the far-end saw. Would be nice if client could pull these logs back in. Tests can put excessive loads on some systems (should have thought more about this in our tests). Don't have consistent error subcodes (would be nice to know if test that was defined to fail, failed for the right reason). "That doesn't work" isn't quite enough. Patchy interoperation isn't just result of incomplete implementations; it's also differences in spec interpretation. This will be true for a while. We need a better X[HT]ML test result format. Really like CDL language test framework that's being used ("best ever"). Have lots of valid and invalid documents defined. Also have manifest files that drive execution. Tests are available on Sourceforge. Experience is that good test cases help specification designers talk about ambiguity, because everyone's test is failing. CDL tests are passing, other tests are failing (at this time). Have "near-100-percent" test case coverage. If everyone gets the same results, we should have interoperability. How do you know you're covering everything that needs to be covered? Really can't. A lot more invalid things than valid things - probably infinitely more. This comes down to the (in)competence of the developers. When I write CDL and check it in, everyone else has to pass my test, too, and that's nice, but we don't know we have 100 percent coverage. When starting WS-Addressing work, there was no test coverage at all. Things are better now. Former GGF was not test-centric, and OASIS is even less so. Need this for agility in standards bodies. Now we're ahead of OASIS and W3C. Not sure we could ever define a complete set of fault codes, or that we should try. We would need all possible fault codes in the specs, and that's problematic. WSR-F does say that everything should throw a specific fault, but the SOAP stack itself throws faults - can't do what the spec says. If I can deploy anything, why not deploy an unreliable proxy server so we can have network failures? But we can't say this in our own specs. This is the difference between specification and implementation. What we've done is probably as state of the art as testing specifications have gone. Test results would include real-time and post-run display, stack traces, logs from different machines, etc. One decision is about machine-readable versus human-readable. Using a Swing GUI that provides more than success/failure - partial success, test in progress, etc. Would like file format that everyone can read, but we don't have this yet. With virtualization, some machines that you ran your tests on may not exist again the next morning - hard to duplicate tests because virtual host may be hosted somewhere different on a re-run. Also looking at NEC implementation - using a script to verify results of tests. Using a Java component implementation, showing an API front end to the implementation. Remaining work on interoperability - only common test deployments. Not particularly hard to resynchronize on different versions of the same specification - file formats, etc. Now that we have CDL and components working, we can focus on component logs. As far as CDL language goes we are complete barring new test cases. For deploy API, think we're complete but may identify more work that must be done as we get experience. As we define more complex components, this gets blurry because it's tied to the component model. We went through most of the NEC tests as well as the HP tests.

1 0