February 2005 - graap-wg

notes/minutes from 2/7/05 teleconference
by Wolfgang Ziegler 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

Minutes including Alain's notes are attached. Best regards Wolfgang -- Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel: +49 2241 14 2258 Fax: +49 2241 14 42258 http://www.scai.fraunhofer.de "Heut ist nicht so kalt wie gestern, trotzdem dass heut kaelter ist" Minutes from Feb. 7, 2005 Teleconference Attendees --------- Takuya Araki Toshiyuki Nakata Wolfgang Zeigler Heiko Ludwig Asit Dan Alain Andrieux Karl Czajkowski Agenda ------ GGF session confirmed for March 16, 1:30 p.m. - 3 p.m. Working through the comments: #1, Changing Offers: After short discussion based on the material Toshi added to this track on the gridforge web-page, and previous discussions on this subject the participants agreed. Decission taken: The example mentioned in the spec is wrong, offers are not expected to change. The wsdl has to be corrected #2, Asynchronous Operations: Toshi: we need asynchronous messaging if the creation of an agreement takes long time to come back from the factory Heiko: according to WSDL specs we would do specify the asynchronicity at the binding level of the factory service specification, not at the port type level. Karl: then we need negotiation again! Asynch is like a very thin layer of negotiation. We would have a different port type: an asynchronous factory to compose with what exists already in the spec if we think binding level is not enough. A messageId like in GRAM would provide a mechanism to recover from the absence of response after the creation message is sent to the factory. In GRAM, if the user does not obtain a response within a timeout delay he chose, s/he/it can choose to decide to retry the submission by using the same message ID. If the job has been created already with that message ID, the factory does not create another job resource but simply returns the EPR (again). In WS-Agreement we could apply this concept instead of asynchronous notifications by having the client/initiator re-issue the same message to the factory, with the same message ID, after a delay chosen by the client. Note: messageID is a concept designed in WS-Addressing in order to detect duplicate messages. Karl will provide the mailing list with information on different ways to handle this problem examined in the context of GT4 implementation. Decission taken: Further discussion to prepare a decission should happen on the mailing list. #3, Related Agreement: Decission taken: Introduces too much complexity into the spec, related agreements are dropped from the spec for the moment. A short discussion after this decission (about probably shifting this kind of features into the (domain specific) context raised other questions like what is a domain, isn't the compatibility reduced when adding too much domain specific issues.., These questions could not be discussed as time for the telecon was over but need a final clarification. Discussions on certain aspects of the spec seem to be difficult as at this stage implementation experience is missing and also interoperability tests between different implementations.

1 0

asynchronous binding
by Takuya Araki (Biglobe) 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

Karl: Could you tell me the pointer to the standard spec. of the asynchronous operation binding you mentioned in the telecon? I've found that WS-Addressing has "message information headers", which can carry the information that is necessary to implement asynchronous operations, but what you mentioned seems to be more than that... -- Takuya Araki Grid System Technology Group Internet Systems Research Laboratories NEC Corporation <t-araki(a)dc.jp.nec.com>

1 0

notes/minutes from 1/31/05 teleconference
by Jim Pruyne 10 Feb '05

10 Feb '05

They are attached. Next call will be on Feb. 7 at the same time as this week. Thanks everyone for dialing in. --- Jim Attendees --------- Kate Keahey Toshiyuki Nakata Jim Pruyne Wolfgang Zeigler Heiko Ludwig Asit Dan Alain Andrieux Art Sedighi Agenda ------ Toshi reminds us about working with EMS GGF session requested by Wolfgang and will try to match Toshi's schedule Working through the comments: Changing Offers: p. 51 and p. 34 are contradictory about whether the text of the offered agreement and the final agreement must be equivalent. One implies that alternatives will be removed. Do we ultimately think that alternatives are a good idea at this point (i.e. without negotiation) at all. Toshi to (re-)post introduction to this discussion. Jim to summarize. Further discussion to take place via the tracker. Jim to send out instructions on how to set that up. Discussion on mailing list on criteria for accepting or rejecting comments, and classes of responses. Heiko to initiate. Discussion on comment by Takuya is discussed on mailing list on Nov. 30 for people to look back at prior to next week's discussion.

3 6