Ah, you are right. E.g. is the actual Latin abbreviation we should have had there, not i.e., but if we are going to change it, I guess we can use English rather than Latin :-). Bill
-----Original Message----- From: owner-dmis-bof@ggf.org [mailto:owner-dmis-bof@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Alex Sim Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:55 PM To: allcock@mcs.anl.gov; 'Michel Drescher'; 'Hiro Kishimoto'; 'Allen Luniewski' Cc: dmis-bof@ggf.org Subject: RE: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter
Can you use "for example" instead of "i.e." unless you want to tie up the working group with the particular ones? In particular, these two places: "Setting up a data movement includes the selection of a transport protocol, i.e. GridFTP, and parameters for reliability, timing, scheduling, resource usage, accounting, billing, etc. The Working Group will explore existing mechanisms to reach such agreement, i.e. WS-Agreement [2] and use them where appropriate. "
And this link in the charter http://schemas.ggf.org/byteio/2005/10/transfer-mechanisms/simp le is still not reachable.
--Alex
| -----Original Message----- | From: owner-dmis-bof@ggf.org [mailto:owner-dmis-bof@ggf.org] | On Behalf Of William E. Allcock | Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:59 AM | To: 'Michel Drescher'; 'Hiro Kishimoto'; 'Allen Luniewski' | Cc: dmis-bof@ggf.org | Subject: RE: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter | | I added the suggested Document goals, but also left the | existing table as I think it gives more detailed info and | will be better for tracking WG progress in the short term. | | It has been suggested that DMI is already a well known | acronym and we should change it. The floor is open for | suggestions. I know that this has already been panned | because by definition we are doing standards, but I am going | to again suggest Data Movement Interface Standardization | (DMIS), because it solves our overlapping acronym problem AND | it is easy to say (dee-miss). | Other suggestions? | | I have also attached my draft of the 7 questions. | | Bill | | > -----Original Message----- | > From: Michel Drescher [mailto:Michel.Drescher@uk.fujitsu.com] | > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:16 AM | > To: Hiro Kishimoto; Allen Luniewski | > Cc: William E. Allcock; dmis-bof@ggf.org | > Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter | > | > Hiro, Allen, all, | > | > I took the pen on the charter again, and tried to incorporate your | > comments. I passed it to Bill for a brush and further work, so that | > there should be an updated charter soon. | > | > Cheers, | > Michel | > | > On 15 Mar 2006, at 3:04, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: | > | > > Hi Bill, | > > | > > Thank you very much for revising WG charter document. | > > In general, it sounds good to me. | > > | > > The following is my comments; | > > | > > (1) Goals section | > > Given that GFSG is now asking all WG/RG co-chairs to maintain web | > > based "Living Charter" (see attached OGSA-WG example), I | recommend | > > to organize goals section based on deliverable documents. | > > | > > Goals section has list of documents and each document has | > > - title | > > - abstract | > > - type | > > - milestones (date for first draft, public comment, publication) | > > | > > (2) transport document | > > Goals section says this WG will create "transport document" but | > > focus/purpose and scope sections don't mention this. | Please explain | > > what is transport document in these previous sections. | > > | > > (3) 7 Q&A document | > > Please update and send out 7 Q&A document as well as charter. | > > You need to provide both to your area director for WG approval. | > > | > > (4) reference | > > | > > "OGSA WSRF Basic Profile Rendering 1.0, GFD.59, T. Maguire, D. | > > Snelling, | > > Global Grid Forum, January 2006" | > > | > > should be | > > | > > "[OGSA WSRF BP] OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0, Foster, I., | > Maguire, T., | > > and Snelling, D. Global Grid Forum, GWD-R, September 2005. | > > | > http://www.ggf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/Oct-2005/draft-ggf- | > > ogsa-wsrf-basic-profile-v43.pdf" | > > | > > (5) Management issues | > > I would add the following sentence to this section; | > > | > > The WG will have joint review discussion with the OGSA-WG and the | > > OGSA-D-WG before every milestone. | > > | > > (5) DMI | > > The Desktop Management Interface (DMI) is rather well known in IT | > > industry. Do you have any other alphabet soup (e.g. Interface of | > > Data Movement: IDM). | > > | > > p.s. | > > OGSA-WG will have interim F2F meeting in San Francisco | Bay Area from | > > April 4-7. If you want to have session at this F2F meeting please | > > provide agenda and how long do you need. | > > | > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ | > > 200604F2F_session | > > | > > Thanks, | > > ---- | > > Hiro Kishimoto | > > | > > William E. Allcock wrote: | > >> Ok, next iteration is attached. We tried to address the | comments | > >> we had received so far. | > >> Bill | > >>> -----Original Message----- | > >>> From: owner-dmis-bof@ggf.org [mailto:owner-dmis-bof@ggf.org] On | > >>> Behalf Of Robert B. Wood | > >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:07 AM | > >>> To: Michel Drescher | > >>> Cc: allcock@mcs.anl.gov; dmis-bof@ggf.org | > >>> Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter | > >>> | > >>> In my opinion, "4th party data transfer" as a term such as | > >>> described below offers more debate than value. To my | > >>> understanding, a 3rd party copy operation is a data transfer | > >>> between two data stores that is initiated by [at least] | one of the | > >>> data stores or devices themselves, without the aid or | instruction | > >>> of the user or their server/application code. | > It was | > >>> originally coined in the realm of data backup. | > >>> | > >>> When an agent of the user (including the user him or herself) | > >>> initiates a data transfer and the data transfer path | > includes the | > >>> user's system, that is a first party operation. When an agent | > >>> initiates a data transfer directly between two data stores or | > >>> devices, without placing their server in the data stream, | > this is | > >>> an extended data movement operation; what is referred to as | > >>> extended copy or serverless backup in the data backup realm. | > >>> | > >>> The usage of these terms is pretty well codified in the SCSI-3 | > >>> specification and implemented in storage products. | > >>> I'm not suggesting that management of agents, like the "truly | > >>> independent service" that Michel describes is trivial, | in fact the | > >>> data security aspects can be quite challenging. Also the line | > >>> between direct control and independent operations is | pretty fuzzy, | > >>> as data movements rarely occur without some user | involvement, be | > >>> it simply an exersize of a service level agreement with | the data | > >>> storage service provider[s]. | > >>> | > >>> Just a couple of comments to the comments to the | comments ... Bob | > >>> | > >>> Michel Drescher wrote: | > >>> | > >>> | > >>>> Bill, | > >>>> | > >>>> some comments, related to the comments you put in the | > >>> | > >>> charter document: | > >>> | > >>>> 4th party data transfer: | > >>>> I see 3 different scenarios for data movement. Let's assume | > >>> | > >>> we have a | > >>>> (data) source and a (data) destination. We also have a | user that | > >>>> wants data moved. If the user is the source, we have a direct | > >>>> pull case, if the user is the destination, then we | have a direct | > >>>> push case. If the user tells the source to move some | data to the | > >>>> destination, then this is 3rd party push, if the user | tells the | > >>>> destination to get some data, then this is 3rd party pull. | > >>>> Well, if the user tells a truly independent service to | initiate a | > >>>> data transfer from source to target, then this is very | > >>> | > >>> similar to 3rd | > >>>> party data transfer, but different enough as there is a 4th | > >>> | > >>> instance | > >>>> participating in the data movement. | > >>>> | > >>>> Transport protocols: | > >>>> Yes I meant application level protocols from a network | > >>> | > >>> point of view, | > >>>> such as GridFTP, HTTP, FTP, etc. | > >>>> | > >>>> | > >>>> Regarding the timeline: | > >>>> The short term planning is ambitious, but manageable, | I think, | > >>>> especially if we can appreciate broad contribution support. | > >>>> | > >>>> Cheers, | > >>>> Michel | > >>>> | > >>>> On 13 Mar 2006, at 22:41, William E. Allcock wrote: | > >>>> | > >>>> | > >>>>> All, | > >>>>> | > >>>>> Michel and I have updated the charter based on discussions | > >>> | > >>> that took | > >>>>> place | > >>>>> at GGF16. They are already scheduling slots for next | GGF, so we | > >>>>> need to ratify this charter ASAP and become a full fledged | > >>>>> working | > >>> | > >>> group. The | > >>> | > >>>>> charter is short, only a couple of pages of text and a table | > >>>>> with goals and timelines. This shouldn't take long, | so please | > >>>>> take a few | > >>> | > >>> minutes | > >>>>> now and | > >>>>> review this. | > >>>>> | > >>>>> In particular we would like comments on: | > >>>>> | > >>>>> - Do you agree with the focus and scope | > >>>>> - Do you think the Goals and timeline are reasonable? | > >>> | > >>> Are we missing | > >>> | > >>>>> anything? | > >>>>> - Which documents / implementations would you be willing | > >>> | > >>> to work on? | > >>> | > >>>>> Thanks, and I hope to see you in Tokyo. | > >>>>> | > >>>>> Bill | > >>>>> | > >>>>> | --------------------------------------------------------------- | > >>>>> William E. Allcock | > >>>>> Argonne National Laboratory | > >>>>> Bldg 221, Office B-139 | > >>>>> 9700 South Cass Ave | > >>>>> Argonne, IL 60439-4844 | > >>>>> Email: allcock@mcs.anl.gov | > >>>>> Office Phone: +1-630-252-7573 | > >>>>> Office Fax: +1-630-252-1997 | > >>>>> Cell Phone: +1-630-854-2842 | > >>>>> | > >>>>>
| > >>>> | > >>>> | > >>> -- | > >>> Bob Wood | > >>> Network Storage Architecture Office Sun Microsystems Inc. | > >>> | > >>> 303.395.3801 (x43011) | > >>> Robert.B.Wood@Sun.com | > >>> | > >>> | > >>> <Charter for OGSA-WG.pdf> | > | > |