[These are last week's minutes since, apparently, my messages to GRAAP
were not going out for the last week or two]
Minutes are attached. We'll meet again next week at the usual time.
--- Jim
Minutes from May 18 '05 Telecon
Attendees
---------
Jim Pruyne
Wolfgang Zeigler
Heiko Ludwig
Asit Dan
Agenda
------
- GGF Plans: We probably need a session on what's next for GRAAP
assuming WS-Agreement spec. work is mostly complete.
* One session could be planning a primer. Would people show up for
such a session and commit to following-up?
* Presentations on implementations in one session: Toshi? Wolfgang?
Asit on Alphaworks? Globus/WS-GRAM? This could get us started
toward interop. work as well as summarizing domains of use. We'll
send out a call for participants in this session on the list.
** We should have a pointer on our group page to on-going
implementation work.
* Planning work on definition on guarantee term description as a
possible additional session.
- Asit on term compositor and WS-Policy: When we look at an agreement
(not a template) there does not seem to be compelling use cases for
specifying alternatives using term compositor with the guarantee and
service description terms. There are cases for alternatives in the
guarantee terms (e.g. times when guarantee terms are applicable),
but those cases are already covered in the guarantee term structure,
i.e., by using qualifying condition. Similarly, alternative service
term selection as expression of service level objective is already
covered with the current guarantee term structure.So, perhaps it is
best to remove the compositor from the agreement structure.
Additionally, if people really want alternatives in their service
description, they can use compositors in their domain-specific
portion of the service description. This leads to the issue of what
about the template where we do need some alternatives. We'd need to
introduce back a notion along the lines of a "service selection"
clause to talk about groups of service description terms and
associated guarantee terms.
* Discussion said that this actually makes sense. Not having
alternatives in a final agreement seems to be correct.
* However, this seems to be a late time to be changing the structure
of the agreement so basically.
* Perhaps such a change would really come about in a post-1.0
version of WS-Agreement, particularly when we have some more
implementation experience.
* General consensus is that it is too late to change now, so unless
further discussion pushes us, that's the (non-)action we'll take on
this for the current spec.
