1 Jul
2014
1 Jul
'14
7:38 p.m.
Makes sense to me. JP On Jul 1, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Warren Smith <wsmith@tacc.utexas.edu> wrote: > > 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@ogf.org [glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] on behalf of Navarro, John-Paul F. [navarro@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@ogf.org > https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg