June 2014 - glue-wg - lists.ogf.org

GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

Greetings GLUE WG, Our next GLUE WG teleconference will be: : Tuesday, July 1, 2014 : 15:30-17:00 Central Europe, 8:30-10:00 AM US Central We will try this teleconference and screen sharing tool: : Web: https://meet.illinois.edu/herrio/V57YV10Q : --> Cancel login dialog, click guest "Sign in here instead", enter name, click "Join the meeting" : Phone: 1-888-983-3631, International 1-217-332-6338 or 1-312-994-8410 : Conference ID: 6759150 As a fall back we also have: : Web: https://webconf.vc.dfn.de/ogf-glue-wg/ (Adobe Connect) : Login as Guest using your real name Meeting materials folder: : http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=6588 Proposed agenda: 1) LDAP rendering: assess final wg comments and votes and perhaps forward for public comment Previous: > Action 1: Florido will coordinate with Maria to confirm that all the recommended testing was completed > Action 2: Once testing is complete, Florido will share a schema document without the release candidate lable > Action 3: JP/Shiraz will merge schema into rendering document, e-mail list to vote and approve document for release to public comment Discuss status. 2) Enumerations: approve enumerations process document Previous: > We noted that this is a GLUE WG working document, and not a spec per-se, so we will be able change it and approve changes by simple agreement. > Action 1: Florido will accept changes and send the document to the list > Action 2: Shiraz/JP will create new versioned wiki pages to contain the material, 1.0 for current document that we will vote on, and 1.1 for the next version > http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/glue-wg/wiki/Enumerations_procedures_and_be… > http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/glue-wg/wiki/Enumerations_procedures_and_be… > Action 3: Florido will transfer content to new wiki pages, and notify Shiraz/JP > Action 4: Shiraz/JP will announce to the list that this is an official WG process document > Action 5: Florido will share Maria's enumeration request and associated discussion with the GLUE WG list All action items are DONE. Discuss next steps, if any. 3) Cloud Extensions: compare benefits and disadvantages of both approaches Previous: > Action 1: Shiraz/JP ask Andre and OGF steering committee for ideas on resolving two approaches supported by 1 community each Discuss status. 4) JSON: continue rendering discussions, discuss next steps. Previous: > Representing association, a to b, b to a, or both? > Option 1: schema allows both directions, rendering document identifies directionality rules that should be followed > Option 2: schema requires both directions > Option 3: schema requires one direction which we consider to be the best, and in few cases may require both directions (applying should rules in rendering document) > Option 4: schema requires one direction which we consider to be the best, the other direction is optional > We want to discuss this with David on the call. > Stephen pointed out that optional relations are ambiguous: if missing is there no relation or is it a missing relation? If David is available we can continue this discussion. 5) Future meetings OGF 41 sessions July 16 or 17 July 29? OGF 42 September 8-12 in London, http://autonomic-conference.org/ Regards, JP and Shiraz

5 11

Announcement: New GLUE2 Enumerations procedures and best practices document
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 19 Jun '14

19 Jun '14

Dear GLUE WG, Our official "GLUE2 Enumerations procedures and best practices" document version 1.0 is now on our wiki: http://redmine.ogf.org/projects/glue-wg/wiki/Enumerations_procedures_and_be… >From now on, requests to add, modify, or deprecate Open Enumeration values must be submitted as detailed in this document. All properly submitted requests will be handled by the group as detailed in this procedure. Changes to this procedure should be posted to the glue-wg list and may be addressed in future versions of this document after group discussion and agreement. A special thanks to Florido for leading this discussion and preparing this document. Regards, JP and Shiraz

2 3

GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, June 17, 2014
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 18 Jun '14

18 Jun '14

Greetings GLUE WG, Our next GLUE WG teleconference will be: : Tuesday, June 17, 2014 : 15:30-17:00 Central Europe, 8:30-10:00 AM US Central We will try a new teleconference and screen sharing tool: : Web: https://meet.illinois.edu/herrio/V57YV10Q : --> Cancel login dialog, click guest "Sign in here instead", enter name, click "Join the meeting" : Phone: 1-888-983-3631, International 1-217-332-6338 or 1-312-994-8410 : Conference ID: 6759150 If the new teleconference tool doesn't work well, we will revert to our normal tool: : Web: https://webconf.vc.dfn.de/ogf-glue-wg/ (Adobe Connect) : Login as Guest using your real name Meeting materials folder: : http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=6587 Proposed agenda: 1) LDAP rendering: assess final wg comments and votes and perhaps forward for public comment Previous actions: > Action 1: Florido will send final schema to the list > Action 2: JP will merge schema into Appendix following XML example > Action 3: JP will add a reference to a standalone schema document in the LDAP rendering document > Action 4: JP/Shiraz will send out for final 1 week comment request to glue-wg > Action 5: JP/Shiraz will integrate comments and send out a 1 week vote request to glue-wg > Action 6: JP/Shiraz will confirm with OGF area lead if we need consensus or majority vote results 2) Enumerations: approve enumerations process document Previous actions: > Agreed 1: Enumerations are case sensitive as defined by the schema entities that they describe > Agreed 2: Prohibit the use of multiple enumerations that only vary in case > Action 1: Florido will update document to reflect Agreed 1 & 2 and notify GLUE WG to review and provide feedback odt: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13260?download= pdf: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13261?download= > Action 2: GLUE WG to review Florido's revised > Action 2: At the next GLUE WG call we will vote on the updated document 3) Cloud Extensions: compare benefits and disadvantages of both approaches > Plan discussion for next meeting. 4) JSON: continue rendering discussions, discuss next steps. > Agreed 1: Use an Associations bag for association references > Agreed 2: All association references will use the "ID" suffix > We will continue JSON rendering discussion at next call. 5) Future meetings Teleconference OGF 41 sessions July 16 or 17 Regards, JP and Shiraz

3 6

Progress on LDAP schema
by Florido Paganelli 18 Jun '14

18 Jun '14

Hi all, Yesterday I tested the changes mandated by the new version of the LDAP document in a test environment and I didn't see any issue. I didn't see any bad error in slapd logs, and the objects that were affected by changes are published as expected. I attach the latest schema and kindly ask Maria and Paul to test the impact on their products: GLUE20.schema.20140508 A list of diffs between the current distributed version of the schema (2.0rc5) against the new version (2.0rc6) that is included in this email: distro2.0rc5_diff_2.0rc6.changes I suggest you check them with some nice editor that colors things up so you can easily spot differences. I pushed the source schemas in my git-hub area temporarily, if we're fine with that I will push it to the official repos: https://github.com/floridop/LDAPWIP I would say that we should put recommendations in the release notes that I added in the README files on git-hub. I didn't do it yet, but the issues I can imagine we should add are the following: 1) ABSTRACT classes to be in sync with XML realisation: Objects like Entity, Resource, Share, Policy have been declared ABSTRACT to be in sync with the XML schema. This means these cannot be instantiated as is; only their specialization can (i.e. Computing- Storage- or others like Benchmark etc.) are objects that can be published. 2) Boolean type changed to DirectoryString This means that if the boolean values that are mandatory in the schema are not defined, the information providers MUST publish them and MUST present the value "undefinedvalue"; GFD.147 Appendix B.17. These are: ExecutionEnvironment.ConnectivityIn ExecutionEnvironment.ConnectivityOut If you spot any problem, let me know. Regards, Florido -- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Location: Fysikum, Hus B, Rum B313 Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli(a)REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ==================================================

3 9

Call for VOTE: OGF GLUE2 Enumerations procedures and best practices
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 18 Jun '14

18 Jun '14

GLUE WG: >From our last GLUE WG teleconference June 3, 2014: > Action 2: GLUE WG to review Florido's revised Enumerations document > Action 2: At the next GLUE WG call we will vote on the updated document We will be taking a formal vote tomorrow, June 17, to accept the "OGF GLUE2 Enumerations procedures and best practices" as our practice. Please review the document here: odt: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13260?download= pdf: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13261?download= If you have opinion on this best practices document please reply with: APPROVE - if you support this best practice DISAPPROVE - if you object, please clearly summarize your objections so that we can discuss them If you approve but have suggested please reply with your approval and list your suggestions. Regards, JP

5 8

Fwd: Re: New ServiceType
by Florido Paganelli 18 Jun '14

18 Jun '14

Hi all, I was requested to share the conversation I had with Maria wrt new ServiceTypes, see below -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [glue-wg] New ServiceType Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 10:47:00 +0200 From: Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli(a)hep.lu.se> To: Maria Alandes Pradillo <Maria.Alandes.Pradillo(a)cern.ch> Uhm, actually I've been to fast... I don't understand these names, and I cannot advice the group to accept them. The reason is, the domain names called dpm.org and storm.org don't seem related to the services you mentioned. The org in front is not cosmetics, maybe you should also read section 2 of the document I sent. The prefix is the reverse DNS name of the organization maintaining the service/product. Inspired by the reference emails you sent, I'd rather suggest the following: for DPM: ch.cern.dpm.storage for StoRM: it.infn.storm.storage If you don't want to bind these to the mentioned organization, an option could be to use glue2 special prefixes: org.ogf.glue.dpm.storage org.ogf.glue.storm.storage Let me know what you think before I bounce this back to the GLUE2 workgroup. Cheers, Florido On 2014-06-17 10:04, Florido Paganelli wrote: > Hi Maria, > > Thanks! will try to fit them in today's discussion for approval. > > Cheers, > Florido > > On 2014-06-17 10:01, Maria Alandes Pradillo wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> OK, so find the new requests below: >> >> Type: GLUE2ServiceType >> Name: org.dpm.storage >> Description: Disk Pool Manager (DPM). Lightweigth solution for disk storage management. >> Reference email: dpm-users-forum(a)cern.ch >> >> Type: GLUE2ServiceType >> Name: org.storm.storage >> Description: Storage Resource Manager (StoRM). File system independent storage manager service. >> Reference email: storm-support(a)lists.infn.it >> >> Regards, >> Maria >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: glue-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf >>> Of Florido Paganelli >>> Sent: 17 June 2014 09:51 >>> To: glue-wg(a)ogf.org >>> Subject: Re: [glue-wg] New ServiceType >>> >>> Hi Maria, >>> >>> We're going to vote for a set of procedures that I wrote about during today's >>> meeting. However, the document is in a almost final state, and we all sort of >>> agreed on the kind of documentation one should add in the request. The >>> document is linked below, would be nice if you comment and provide >>> information with respect to Section 3 that is specific on how to request new >>> enumerations: >>> >>> odt: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13260?download= >>> pdf: https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13261?download= >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Florido >>> >>> On 2014-06-16 17:16, Maria Alandes Pradillo wrote: >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Not sure what needs to be done right now to ask for new values for the open >>> enumerations. The thing is that I would like to request to add: >>>> >>>> org.dpm.storage >>>> org.storm.storage >>>> >>>> to GLUE2ServiceType >>>> >>>> Would this be possible? >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot, >>>> Maria >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> glue-wg mailing list >>>> glue-wg(a)ogf.org >>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ================================================== >>> Florido Paganelli >>> ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration >>> System Administrator >>> Lund University >>> Department of Physics >>> Division of Particle Physics >>> BOX118 >>> 221 00 Lund >>> Office Location: Fysikum, Hus B, Rum B313 Office Tel: 046-2220272 >>> Email: florido.paganelli(a)REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se >>> Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli >>> ================================================== >>> _______________________________________________ >>> glue-wg mailing list >>> glue-wg(a)ogf.org >>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg > > -- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Location: Fysikum, Hus B, Rum B313 Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli(a)REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ==================================================

1 0

glue2 cloud examples
by Warren Smith 17 Jun '14

17 Jun '14

Hi all, I put some examples of how I'm representing an IaaS cloud using GLUE 2 into https://github.com/OGF-GLUE/JSON/tree/master/examples. Look for the files ending in openstack.json and the file images.json. I use a few extensions, but not very many. My approach is: Instance/Virtual Machine - ComputingActivity Physical Node - ExecutionEnvironment Virtual Machine Image - ApplicationEnvironment/Handle I haven't done anything with storage at this point, but my approach would be to handle an object or image store the same as a shared/parallel file system. I also haven't done anything related to describing virtual networks - GLUE 2 doesn't have much support for describing networks in general. VLANs, overlay networks, etc. are used outside of cloud environments as well as in cloud environments, so I don't know if there would be any need for separate entities/schemas for cloud vs non-cloud environments. Warren

4 20

New ServiceType
by Maria Alandes Pradillo 17 Jun '14

17 Jun '14

Dear all, Not sure what needs to be done right now to ask for new values for the open enumerations. The thing is that I would like to request to add: org.dpm.storage org.storm.storage to GLUE2ServiceType Would this be possible? Thanks a lot, Maria

2 2

GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, June 3, 2014
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 06 Jun '14

06 Jun '14

Greetings GLUE WG, Our next GLUE WG teleconference will be: : Tuesday, June 3, 2014 : 15:30-17:00 Central Europe, 8:30-10:00 AM US Central We will try a new teleconference and screen sharing tool: : Web: https://meet.illinois.edu/herrio/V57YV10Q : --> Cancel login dialog, click guest "Sign in here instead", enter name, click "Join the meeting" : Phone: 1-888-983-3631, International 1-217-332-6338 or 1-312-994-8410 : Conference ID: 6759150 If the new teleconference tool doesn't work well, we will revert to our normal tool: : Web: https://webconf.vc.dfn.de/ogf-glue-wg/ (Adobe Connect) : Login as Guest using your real name Meeting materials folder: : http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=6586 Proposed agenda: 1) LDAP rendering (JP/Shiraz: 10 minutes) Discuss status, voting, and release for public comment. Previous action items: > Action 1: Everyone review Florido's specification edits, Shiraz/JP approve and accept changes > Action 2: Florido will share schema diffs in ~1 week, everyone please review and comment > Action 3: After changes accepted advance internal document version to 7.3, fix naming, and upload to this Drafts folder:https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=14 > Next call we will vote to approve document(s) and release for public comment. 2) Enumerations (Florido: 5 minutes) Discuss status. Previous action items: > Action 1: Florido will update and move practice document to Drafts/, everyone please review and comment. > https://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=14 3) Cloud extensions (Salvatore/Warren/all: 5 minutes) Plan discussion for future meeting. Previous action items: > We will discuss advantages and disadvantages compiled by Salvatore and Warren at next meeting on June 3rd 4) JSON rendering (Warren/Shiraz: 30+ minute presentation) Warren presentation, discuss vote/approval and public comment. Previous action items: > Warren will look over David's edits, corrections. > Action 1: Warren will post final document by May 27th, everyone please review and comment. > Action 2: JP/Shiraz will announce vote on list so for individuals that can't make the June 3rd meeting. > Action 3: Warren will present (~30 minutes) the JSON rendering material in June 3rd meeting for group to vote/approve and send to public comment Regards, JP and Shiraz

4 9

JSON rendering & Extension
by Warren Smith 04 Jun '14

04 Jun '14

We were discussing on the call that the way that extensions are defined in the JSON schema (in Entity https://github.com/OGF-GLUE/JSON/blob/master/schema/Entity.json) doesn't exactly match the GLUE 2 spec. We've got them defined as a JSON object (key/value pairs) in Entity. One issue was that there isn't a LocalID in the JSON schema, but there is in the spec. After the call, I thought that one approach to address this is that in the JSON rendering, the LocalID is implicit - it is the same as the key. This makes it straightforward to map to a different rendering (create a LocalID that is the same as the key in the JSON document) and map from a different rendering to JSON (just drop the LocalID). Another issue was that the JSON schema doesn't define a separate Extension object. I think this is fine since it follows the same pattern we used for enumerations - embed them directly into the object definitions where they are used for readability. A final issue we discussed was that the spec specifies that the Value of the Extension is a String. I would like to allow the value to be any simple type (string, number, or boolean), since this fits the JSON style and makes the JSON documents easier to use. To convert a JSON GLUE2 document to a different rendering, it is easy enough to turn a number or boolean into a string and to convert from a different rendering, it is also easy to try to parse the value as a number or boolean before defaulting to string. To me, this is within the bounds of rendering the abstract GLUE 2 spec into a specific representation. Warren

2 1