January 2006 - graap-wg - lists.ogf.org

Re: Out of the Past - the GRAAP use cases
by Jon MacLaren 24 Apr '06

24 Apr '06

All, As promised, I've dusted down the Usage Scenarios, put new GGF boilerplate text (IPR statement, etc.) in, and submitted the document to the GGF Editor for public review. It will be great to see this document finally published. The document can be found in DOC and PDF (Sorry for the usually long GridForge URLs): https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/draft-ggf- graap-usagescenarios-02.doc/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/draft-ggf- graap-usagescenarios-02.pdf/en/1 The GGF Editor tracker for the document is at: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1726 Cheers, Jon.

1 1

[ogsa-wg] Survey for GGF16, GGF17, and interim F2F in April
by Hiro Kishimoto 30 Jan '06

30 Jan '06

Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting. As you already know, OGSA-WG is planning to have F2F meetings back-to-back with GGF16 (Athens) and GGF17 (Tokyo). We are also planning to have interim F2F meeting in April (venue TBD). Please let us know your plan for attendance and preference by answering the following on-line survey. http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224YECBCXZY OGSA-WG will discuss meeting plans at the upcoming weekly call on Monday, Jan. 30th, 4-6pm CST. And hard deadline for this survey is Sunday, Feb. 5th. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

minutes from 1/25/06 telecon
by Jim Pruyne 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Attached. We'll meet next week at the same time. --- Jim Attendees --------- Toshi Nakata Wolfgang Ziegler Heiko Lugwig Jim Pruyne Asit Dan Discussion ---------- * OGSA F2F: Jim presented current WS-Agreement status at the OGSA F2F including implementation status. Got feedback suggesting that we really need some work specific terms. Dave Snelling suggested security as a possible domain, but that would require experts from outside of GRAAP. Jim got similar feedback from Stephen Pickles on behalf of the GGF steering group suggesting that they would like to see term set definitions for some areas. * Comments: - "sorry for the late post": Section 9 comment on simple-client server we would rather not get to the level of detail of an EPR at that point. Section 9.1.1.2 comment: Agreed, the text and wsdl are not consistent. Section 9.4.5 comment: Agreed, the schema has been updated. Section 10 comments: import has been removed, and all references to WS-ServiceGroup are removed. Appendix 1 comment: We'll move wsag:Template to a top-level element. To be updated by Heiko.

2 1

GRAAP sessions at GGF16
by Wolfgang Ziegler 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

Hi, the three GRAAP sessions at GGF16 are scheduled for Wednesday, February 15. GRAAP#1 8:30am - 10:00am GRAAP#2 10:30am - 12:00pm GRAAP#3 1:30pm - 3:00pm 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"

1 0

telecon on 1/25
by Jim Pruyne 25 Jan '06

25 Jan '06

We will have a telecon. on Wed. morning/evening. Dial-in numbers will be the same. The time is: 9:00AM Central Time US (GMT-0600, I think) which should be: 10:00AM Eastern Time US 1500 UK 1600 Germany midnight Japan 2200 Thailand Phone Number: 866-673-8466 in the US. 702-477-6031 for those outside the US. Conference code #8578310. Topics to be touched on include, OGSA F2F report, any GGF planning, addressing comments from public comment. --- Jim

1 0

WS-Agreement and WS-PolicyConstraints
by Anne Anderson 18 Jan '06

18 Jan '06

Colleagues, I just finished reading WS-Agreement: this is a nice piece of work. I noticed that the language for constraints or condition expressions in WS-Agreement is not specified, although XQuery is mentioned as possibly being suitable. A group of us in OASIS are discussing a constraint/condition language based on the functions used in the OASIS XACML access control language. This language would work very well as a constraint language in WS-Agreement. The advantage of this language over XQuery is that the intersection of two constraints or conditions can be determined automatically and efficiently (formally based on narrowing algorithm work, although that is not mentioned in the draft spec). This makes it easy for one party to determine automatically and with a standard engine whether the actual conditions and constraints in a proposed agreement fall within another party's parameters. The discussion is going on at dipal-discuss(a)lists.oasis-open.org ("dipal" stands for "domain-independent policy assertion language"). You do not have to be a member of OASIS to participate. The archives are at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dipal-discuss/. DIPAL is designed to work within any "Boolean combinations of predicates" framework, such as WS-Policy or the WS-Agreement "All", "OneOrMore", and "ExactlyOne" compositors. The draft spec Sun has offered to contribute on RF terms is called "WS-PolicyConstraints", and is available at http://research.sun.com/projects/xacml. This spec is based on a Working Draft developed in the XACML TC by Tim Moses of Entrust; the working draft is not moving forward in the XACML TC because it goes beyond the "authorization and access control" charter. Frank Siebenlist of GGF has been a strong supporter of both these specs, and is one of the co-sponsors of the discussion list. I invite you to participate in our conversation. I would be happy to answer any questions. We have 60 more days to gather interest in standardizing this work, and we need companies to openly support it in order to move forward. Regards, Anne -- Anne H. Anderson Anne.Anderson(a)sun.com Sun Microsystems Labs 1-781-442-0928 Burlington, MA USA

2 1

no graap call on 1/18
by Jim Pruyne 18 Jan '06

18 Jan '06

Sorry for the short notice, I will not be able to make the telecon on 1/18 at the usual time. I expect to be able to hold the call the following week. --- Jim

1 0

[ogsa-wg] Final proposed schedule for OGSA F2F meeting
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Jan '06

15 Jan '06

Please accept my apologies for cross posting. Attached is the (hopefully) final proposed schedule for upcoming OGSA-WG and fellow WGs F2F meeting in Sunnyvale. The last minutes changes include; - Swap GRAAP and OGSA 1.5 on Tuesday. - Move WS-Management profile to Wed 1:30-2:30pm - Move Information to Monday afternoon, swapping with the EMS roadmap. It is also uploaded to GridForge; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2006Jan-OGSA-F2F-agen… See you in Sunnyvale! -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

minutes from 1/11 telecon
by Jim Pruyne 13 Jan '06

13 Jan '06

Attached... --- Jim Notes from Jan. 11 Teleconference --------------------------------- Attendees --------- Wolfgang Ziegler Heiko Ludwig Asit Dan Jim Pruyne Philipp Wieder Agenda Items ------------ - GGF: No schedule has been posted yet. * One session on spec. updates prior to GGF16 * Two more sessions of implementation presentations, continuing discussions from presentations from previous GGF. - OGSA F2F: * Jim will plan to attend for a couple hours * Will there be any feedback on the spec. through this? Philipp: perhaps not as they look only to consume based on last F2F. - Wolfgang provided feedback to GGF Office on status of deliverables as requested by Joel. - Comments: - Missing references: Philipp to do this in the next day, and re-upload - To Remove: SNAP - Also to update to the proper link for various specs. - Flexibility of WS-A. comment: - 1. We don't think the current WS-Agreement prohibits what he's suggesting, but we also don't define it. - 2. Basically DoS attack concerns. Agreed, that this might be a nice thing to be able to do, but we consider it outside the scope of WS-Agreement. Many of these issues are true for any web service, and not specific to WS-Agreement, though how one searches the possible agreement space is somewhat more relevant. - 3. We specifically restricted to 2 parties to avoid specific remediation of multiple parties. That is, who specifically is at fault when there are more than two parties with specific responsibilities to one another. Therefore, we limit WS-Agreement to two party. - 4. Agreed that a library service is useful, but it is outside the scope of WS-Agreement. For signing, and authentication, other general practices for web services should be applicable. - Discovery of compatible agreement parties - There is some hint as to the valid languages in the template based on the definition of namespaces. That is, an initiator should be sure that all namespaces declared in the template are understood. However, this seems like a good point, and the suggestion seems valid. Our current thinking is to consider this in a next version based on some experience with the current version. It may be that some practice like this will emerge which we could incorporate in a future version. The reference to a similar use in wsrp does help us to see a model that might be used. - "sorry for the late post" to be addressed on future call due to time constraints. - "several comments" - 1. Version will come from reference, and as needed in the specification name. Philipp to update along with references. - 2. Already has been addressed. Philipp to double check. - 3. Heiko to investigate status. - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment.

4 5

meeting schedule update (Re: [ogsa-wg] Ad hoc calls on Jan. 12th)
by Hiro Kishimoto 12 Jan '06

12 Jan '06

Hi all, Based on the morning discussion, I've switched ByteIO and OGSA-data in the Thursday morning. There are two more the last minutes change requests we should discuss tomorrow; - Thursday afternoon Switch GRAAP joint session and Arch & Glossary 1.5 session, since Jim Pruyne will come mid afternoon. - Wednesday afternoon Move WS-management Profile discussion from Friday Morning to Wednesday afternoon and push naming session later. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2006Jan-OGSA-F2F-agen… Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi all, > > We will have an ad hoc call for F2F meeting preparation > on Thursday. The following is a proposed agenda. > > ATTENTION: day of week, time, dial-in number are all different. > > Date: Jan. 12th Thursday > Time: 8-10pm (CST) = 6-8pm (PST) = 11am-1pm JST = 2-4am UK > > The dial-in number: > US Toll number: +1 408-961-6509 (San Jose) and > +1 718-354-1071 (New York) > UK Toll number: +44 (0)207 365-5269 > JP Toll number: +81 (0)3 3570 8183 > The pass code: 4371991 > > Screen share service will be provided. > URL: http://ogsa.glance.net > Session key: 0112 > See more explanation: > http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html > > 1) Early discussion (10 min) > Note taker assignment > Roll call > Telecon minutes approval (Dec. 19) > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes20051219/en/1 > Agenda bashing > > 2) CDDLM-WG joint call (60 min) > Jem has uploaded the revised version to the GridForge. > - http://tinyurl.com/aez86 > Look forward to proofread and tracker verification. > > (1) Deployment and configuration section break-down > >> == Proposed list of sections == >> >> 3.1 Provision (Deploy) an application on an existing BES container >> (The application can then be used to instantiate a BES activity. >> Mostly what is now 3.2 in EMS Architecture composition.) >> >> 3.2 Provision a BES container >> (What is now 3.1 in EMS Architecture composition) >> >> [Both 3.1 and 3.2 assume that the 'level' of the BES container is >> pre-determined and fixed. See below.] >> >> 3.3 Using ACS do 3.1 >> >> 3.4 Using ACS do 3.2 >> >> [Both 3.3 and 3.4 assume that the 'level' of the BES container is >> pre-determined and fixed. See below.] >> >> 3.5 Add time predictions to provision 3.1 and 3.2 by a deadline >> Using a deployment estimation service (perhaps based on >> historical data, etc, but how the estimation is done is >> out-of-scope.) Possibly requiring reservations. >> >> [3.5 assumes that the 'level' of the BES container is pre-determined >> and fixed. See below.] >> >> 3.x Determine dynamically the optimal level of 'BES container' in the >> system and provision containers appropriately depending on >> workload etc >> may depend on analysis of the entire application CDL (down to >> hardware) for the entire workload of the system; use >> deployment time predictions; etc >> >> <<Version 1 of the document could just cover scenarios 3.1-3.5 and >> discuss 3.x as future work. Otherwise need to breakdown 3.x further.>> >> == > > > > (2) - Deployment versus provisioning requirements > >> (Or, where to 'cut' the CDL tree. Above the 'cut' point is >> deployment---assumed to be a relatively 'light' operation---and >> below is provisioning---assumed to be more heavy-weight.) >> - Deciding the cut point is orthogonal to CDDLM---it is policy or >> best practices and is therefore a system choice >> - Information (metadata) to help in making the choice could be >> added to the CDL as mark up >> - CDDLM implementations have walked the tree fairly far down (to >> the hardware) for deployment >> - CDL may be sufficient to express both deployment and >> provisioning. But it is an open issue if these two activities >> can, or should be unified in this way in OGSA. In particular CDL >> may not be going to the full extent of supporting costing, etc., >> that maybe needed to address all requirements >> - Resources beneath the cut point can be considered as >> pre-provisioned: they either exist or they don't. They are not >> going to be deployed themselves; but they can be used to >> deploy on. >> - Which resource to choose for deployment? It is the choice of >> the EMS architecture (EPS, CSG) and not of CDDLM. >> - Discussion on how CDL may be viewed as a hierarchy of scripts; >> and that one could have a history of costs associated with >> each node. In other words the tree could be decorated with >> other information (cost, etc, as metadata) > > > (3) - JSDL and CDL relation and can one cover the requirements for the > >> other >> - A JSDL submission may be associated with a deployment >> description or request, and the deployment portion could be >> described in CDL. [I.e., CDL could be a more specific >> application >> sub-type in a JSDL document.] >> - JSDL is not intended to describe the configuration of the >> software that will be used by the job. The aim is to describe >> things at a higher level. There may be similarities between the >> languages (perhaps around resource description) but it does not >> mean that one language can, or should, replace the other because >> they serve different purposes. >> - Jay wants to pursue the issue further among a smaller group of >> people. > > > 3) OGSA F2F meeting update (30 min) > Session leaders: Please provide your goals and detailed agenda. > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2005Winter_F2F_survay > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2006Jan-OGSA-F2F-agen… > > > 4) Wrap up (10 min) > AOB > > <NEXT CALL> > > OGSA-WG F2F Jan. 16-20.

1 0