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