- glue-wg - lists.ogf.org

GLUE Sessions at OGF41
by Shiraz Memon 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

Dear WG members, We will have two face-to-face sessions at OGF41, collocated with XSEDE14. Here are the meeting coordinates. Room: A708 (Atrium Level) Date & Time: Tuesday (16.07) and Wednesday (17.07), 10:00-12:00 AM US Eastern, 15:00-17:00 BST, 16:00-18:00 CEST Duration: 2 hrs For the remote participants & presenters, please use the following Web conferencing facilities: : 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 Proposed talks: 1) Cloud extensions 2) Enumerations 3) LDAP status 4) JSON Rendering 5) Any other topics? Best regards, Shiraz -- Ahmed Shiraz Memon Federated Systems and Data Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC) Phone: +49 2461 61 6899 Fax: +49 2461 61 6656 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH 52425 Juelich Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir Dr. Karl Eugen Huthmacher Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Marquardt (Vorsitzender), Karsten Beneke (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt, Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

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

associations in JSON rendering (RE: NOTES: GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014)
by Warren Smith 01 Jul '14

01 Jul '14

David, Shiraz, and I emailed a bit and regarding 4) below, I think we're happy with Option 4. This seems a good middle ground between interoperability (the consumer knows that certain association directions will always be there) and flexibility (a project can also represent an association in the opposite direction). Does that work for everyone? Warren ________________________________________ From: glue-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [glue-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org] on behalf of Navarro, John-Paul F. [navarro(a)mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:33 AM To: OGF GLUE Working Group Subject: [glue-wg] NOTES: GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, July 1, 2014 Present: Florido, Salvatore, Warren, Shiraz, JP Meeting folder: http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=6588 > Agenda/minutes: > > 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 Action 1: Florido will post final schema by tomorrow/Wednesday to meeting folder Action 2: JP/Shiraz will merge schema into rendering document and post proposed public comment document to meeting folder Action 3: JP/Shiraz will call for e-mail list vote to release document for public comment after OGF 41 Action 4: Final vote to release to public comment at OGF 41 including e-mail list votes > 2) Enumerations: approve enumerations process document All action items complete. Keep topic on agenda to discuss requests for new enumerations. > 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 Warren/JP propose XSEDE abstaining in a 2.0 vs 2.1, making GLUE 2.1 the cloud interoperability standard. XSEDE would produce a Community Practice Profile for using GLUE 2.0 to describe Cloud Infrastructures Action 1: Shiraz/JP will find a Community Practice, Profile example for Warren Action 2: Salvatore and Warren will prepare OGF 41 slides presenting advantages and disadvantages if approaches Action 3: Shiraz/JP will ask Andre and Steering Committee for suggestions regarding dilemma > 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? Action 1: Warren e-mail David directly about how to represent associations. > 5) Future meetings > OGF 41 sessions July 16 or 17 - One session each day at 10:30 slot for 90 minutes (total 2 sessions) - Topics: LDAP, Enumerations, Cloud, JSON Action 1: Shiraz will send meeting coordinates to e-mail list July 8 at the normal time we will discuss/prepare OGF 41 slides: - Florido and JP will discuss draft Enumeration slides - Others with draft slides to discuss are welcome to attend > July 29? We will decide at OGF 41 is this meeting is needed. > OGF 42 September 8-12 in London, http://autonomic-conference.org/ This would be a good meeting due to European representation to have the 2.1 schema and XSEDE profile drafts ready to discuss and release for public comment. Regards, JP and Shiraz _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg(a)ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg

2 1

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