- glue-wg - lists.ogf.org

GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, December 2, 2014
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

Greetings GLUE WG, Our next GLUE WG teleconference will be: : Tuesday, December 2, 2014 : 15:30-17:00 Central Europe, 8:30-10:00 AM US Central NOTE: We had previously discussed meeting last week on November 25th, but that didn't work out. Hoping this week works out for most. 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: Brief updates followed by a more detailed discussion of proposed cloud extensions. 1) LDAP rendering: assess final wg comments and votes and perhaps forward for public comment Previous: > Action: Florido will send LDAP schema to merge into document, recommend publish path > Action: JP/Shiraz will merge Florido's 9/2/2014 comments, LDAP document and release for public comment > Agreed that we would publish the LDAP compiled schema at a specific URL > Action: JP to confirm schemas.ogf.org versus www.ogf.org/schemas/ (prefer schemas.ogf.org) > CONFIRMED that we can use schema.ogf.org/ to publish LDAP and JSON schema > We do not think there will be technical conflicts for XML, LDAP, and JSON schemas co-existing under the same URL namespace. > http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.84.pdf defines standard XML namespace. OGF doesn't have equivalent standards for LDAP or JSON. 2) Enumerations: approve enumerations process document Previous: > Florido posted script to merge, it's on Github. > David volunteers to help manage enumerations, including add missing enumerations. > We need define the enumerations described in GFD.147. > ACTION: Warren will post proposed job state enumerations from XSEDE > ACTION: David/Warren/Shiraz will explore Git tools/ pull requests for maintaining enumerations and propose changed enumeration management process documentation 3) Cloud Extensions: compare benefits and disadvantages of both approaches Previous: > Our next meeting on November 25 will focus on GLUE 2.1 Cloud changes > We discussed extensively what we mean by compatibility between GLUE 2.0 and 2.1. > No conclusion reached and needs to be further discussed. > We didn't have time to discuss Paul's proposal to add a View attribute in 2.1 > David will explore pricing policies in the context of GLUE2 and OGF SLA (WS-Agreement, GRAP) working group 4) JSON: continue rendering discussions, discuss next steps. Previous: > JSON schema is ready for WG review before release for public comment. > ACTION: Warren will post schema pointer to the working group this week, we will vote on 25th to release for public comment. 5) Future meetings Discuss December 12th meeting in London. Regards, JP and Shiraz

4 3

No GLUE WG meeting December 12 in London
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 02 Dec '14

02 Dec '14

Dear GLUE WG, Peter Solagna (cc'ed), David, and I talked after the GLUE WG teleconference today. EGI is interested in standardizing cloud publishing using GLUE, but they will not be able to prioritize progress till 2015 and they will NOT have anyone available December 12 in London to present the draft additions prepared by Salvatore. So, we are CANCELING our December 12th meeting in London. Thanks, JP

1 0

json rendering & public comment
by Warren Smith 01 Dec '14

01 Dec '14

Hi all, We think the JSON rendering document is ready for public comment. We believe we've addressed everything that has been brought up in the working group discussions. We'd like to get any last comments from you and there will be a vote on November 25 about whether the document is ready for public comment. There will be a working group meeting on the 25th where you can vote. If you can't attend that meeting, I suggest you vote by emailing the working group list on or before the 25th. The rendering document is available in http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=6593. It appears to be publicly viewable, but if you have any problems seeing it, let me know. If you'd like to see the schema outside of the document or see some examples, you will find those at https://github.com/OGF-GLUE/JSON<https://github.com/OGF-GLUE/JSON/tree/master/schema>. Warren

1 1

GLUE v 2.0 -- Reference Realization to LDAP Schema -- submitted for public comment
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 25 Nov '14

25 Nov '14

Greetings GLUE WG, Per our most recent meeting. I performed a final review of our LDAP rendering recommendation, applied some outstanding corrections, and uploaded a new version to redmine: http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=14 Our recommendation has not been submitted to the OGF Editor to release for public comment: http://redmine.ogf.org/issues/242 Please reply if I missed any proposed changes so that we can apply them along with other public comment feedback. Thanks, JP

3 4

Fwd: [Editor - document #242] (initial review) GLUE v. 2.0 – Reference Realisation to LDAP Schema
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 24 Nov '14

24 Nov '14

Begin forwarded message: From: <redmine(a)ogf.org<mailto:redmine@ogf.org>> Date: November 23, 2014 9:57:13 PM CST To: undisclosed-recipients:; Subject: [Editor - document #242] (initial review) GLUE v. 2.0 – Reference Realisation to LDAP Schema Issue #242 has been updated by Greg Newby. Status changed from submitted to initial review Assignee set to Andre Merzky Dear John-Paul et al., Thanks for this submission. I have performed the initial Editor review, and am now submitting it for steering group review prior to 60-day public comment. I appreciate your group's efforts for this important submission. I noted your request for publishing the schema. This is no problem to accompany the publication. It is part of our standard procedure to do so. Greg Newby ---------------------------------------- document #242: GLUE v. 2.0 – Reference Realisation to LDAP Schema https://redmine.ogf.org/issues/242#change-653 Author: John-Paul Navarro Status: initial review Priority: Normal Assignee: Andre Merzky Category: Target version: Document Type: Proposed Recommendation This document provides information to the Grid community regarding the LDAP Schema realisation of the GLUE information model (v.2.0). Distribution is unlimited. This implementation is derived from the proposed recommendation GFD.147 “GLUE Specification v. 2.0”. -- You have received this notification because you have either subscribed to it, or are involved in its topic. To change your notification preferences, please click here: http://redmine.ogf.org/my/account

1 0

GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, November 11, 2014
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 17 Nov '14

17 Nov '14

Greetings GLUE WG, Our next GLUE WG teleconference will be: : Tuesday, November 11, 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: JP/Shiraz will call for a working group e-mail vote by July 25 to release LDAP rendering document for public comment. Changes should be submitted as change tracked word updates. > NOTE: Given that the call for vote will not go out till July 23, WG chairs will extend the vote thru July 31st. Discuss status. 2) Enumerations: approve enumerations process document Previous: > We discussed managing separate enumeration files for each enumeration and distributing a shell script to download and concatenate all of them. This will eliminate the overhead of having to maintained a merged file. > Andrew (BES/JSDL) will submit some requested enumerations. Will also submit a request for a new enumeration type coprocessor that we will probably want to include in GlUE 2.1. He wants us to figure out what entity it belongs in within the abstract information model. > Discussed requesting for volunteers thru e-mail list to work on missing enumerations. 3) Cloud Extensions: compare benefits and disadvantages of both approaches Previous: > ACTION 1: Shiraz/JP will call for an e-mail vote on using GLUE 2.1 for interoperable clouds. > ACTION 2: Salvatore will include new Horizon 2020 requirements in the draft 2.1 specification. > ACTION 3: Salvatore will call for an e-mail vote to approve GLUE 2.1 for release for public comment, and request for non-disruptive additions/corrections to be applied before releasing for public comment. > We plan to release GLUE 2.1 with cloud support for public comment around December and (possible) OGF 43 in London. > Discussed whether XSEDE produce a 2.0 community profile? Opinions: fine either way. Perhaps a community practice isn't necessary if XSEDE's implementation is public (which it will be). Discuss status. 4) JSON: continue rendering discussions, discuss next steps. Previous: > ACTION 1: Warren will cleanup document and schema (including dates) and send draft to working group for review and e-mail vote on releasing for public comment. > If working group approves release for public comment: > ACTION 2: Shiraz will export draft to word, enable change tracking, and apply OGF formatting for release for public comment. Public comment announcement will include details of existing and planned implementations. > Discussed creating a wiki page with implementor details pointing to github, mentioning relevant tools, and other guidelines to help implementors. > Agreed to publish to schema.ogf.org, for example: http://schemas.ogf.org/glue/2013/05/spec_2.0_r1/Activity.json > The schema path date will be the month of release for public comment. > In appendix where JSON schema documents are included, precede each schema document with the URL to the above schema.ogf.org publishing location. 5) Future meetings In 2 weeks? December 12 morning in London Regards, JP and Shiraz

5 10

Publishing LDAP and JSON schemas
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 14 Nov '14

14 Nov '14

We've been given a "preliminary" green light to publish LDAP and JSON schemas under: http://schemas.ogf.org/glue/ We should get a final OK after review from more OGF leaders. JP

1 0

GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, November 11 availability
by Navarro, John-Paul F. 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

Greetings GLUE WG, It has been several months since we've had a teleconference. We propose that our next GLUE WG teleconference be: : Tuesday, November 11, 2014 : 15:30-17:00 Central Europe, 8:30-10:00 AM US Central If you are a recent contributor to the LDAP rendering, Enumerations work, Cloud extensions, or JSON rendering, please reply by Friday November 7 to confirm your availability November 11. We will confirm the meeting and send out an agenda if enough participants are available. Regards, JP and Shiraz

6 5

Off on holiday
by Paul Millar 30 Sep '14

30 Sep '14

Hi all, Just a quick email to say I'm currently off on holiday this week and will be spending the first half of next week away and quite busy with an "All Hands" meeting; so I'll be unlikely to have time to reply before a Thursday next week. Cheers, Paul.

1 0

Fwd: Re: New attribute for GLUE 2.1: StorageShare.ViewID
by Paul Millar 29 Sep '14

29 Sep '14

Hi all, Sorry, my email client decided to sent the reply directly to Maria, so I'm forwarding it here. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Hi Maria, I started off replying generally, rather than point-for-point, but have included some specific points where it makes sense. Yes, dCache instances would move to GLUE 2.1 info-providers, but I would hope to do that anyway. > Do you mean SRM shares could overlap with Physical Shares or do > you mean that SRM shares overlap among themselves and the same > with Physical Shares? I mean that, for dCache: a. an SRM share do not overlap with any other SRM share. b. a Physical share do not overlap with any other physical share. c. a Physical share may overlap with a SRM share. Statement b. isn't completely true currently (as expressed by the SharingID), but I aim to fix that soon. > In any case, if only Physical Shares are intended to be used > for installed capacity, this should be the ones used by > sites who may want to rely on the BDII for installed > capacities, right? Yes, that's exactly right! The problem is GLUE 2.0 has no way for me to say "these shares are different from those ones", or "these shares are the ones to use for storage accounting". The ViewID is aimed exactly at fixing this: I give all the physical shares the same ViewID ("physical" say) and all the SRM shares the same ViewID ("srm-reservations", say) and then it's easy to select the Physical shares. > What is then published in GLUE2StorageServiceCapacity? The total > of Physical Shares? Yes. > But who has asked for this? My understanding is that nobody > is interested on relying on the BDII for this. I had to smile inwardly here ... Yes, there was an effort, starting around five years ago, in precisely this direction: https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/LCG/WLCGCommonComputingReadinessChallenges/… "The goal of this document is to detail how to use the Glue Schema version 1.3 in order to publish information to provide the WLCG management with a view of the total installed capacity and resource usage by the VOs at sites. This information can also be used by VO operations and management in order to monitor the VO usage of the resource" Myself (and others) invested considerable time in trying to provide these numbers with GLUE 1.3. GLUE 2.0 was developed with this use-case in mind, albeit (from memory) not extensively reviewed. > [...] I´m not sure is a use case we would like to address. It seems at least one site wishes to make use of these numbers and to automate the process. I don't think we should give up, just because the problem isn't solved yet. > I made a comparison in February between WLCG Accounting reports > and what the BDII and REBUS were publishing in terms of installed > capacities. And I think there was no single match for any T1: > http://wlcg-mon.cern.ch/dashboard/request.py/siteview#currentView=WLCG+Acco… I believe there are many factors influencing such dependencies; however, this would suggest a need for more automation, not less. Such dependencies should be investigated and understood. Yes, more work is needed, investigations, etc; however, we have to start somewhere, so I gave a concrete proposal so people have something they can understand: a straw-man they can hack away at. Cheers, Paul.

3 8