March 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

minutes from 3/29 telecon
by Jim Pruyne 29 Mar '06

29 Mar '06

They are attached. We'll meet at the "usual" times next week. Usual is defined w.r.t. the US. However, the US is changing to daylight savings time over the weekend, this should make it one hour earlier in most other parts of the world. Further, there is some interest in holding additional phone conferences during April to try to make sure we're completed by GGF in Tokyo. If we do this, I would propose the same time of day as usual (i.e. 9AM Central time in the US), but on Friday's. I realize this makes it late night in Asia on a Friday night which might be considered unattractive. Please give feedback on the need for additional calls, and on preferred days/times for them. --- Jim Minutes from the March 29, 2006 GRAAP Telecon Attendees --------- Toshi Nakata Jim Pruyne Asit Dan Heiko Ludwig Wolfgang Ziegler Discussion ---------- - Next week's call will be at the same time in the US although daylight savings time will have started. Jim will try to update the reminder properly. - On terminate: We discussed the state transitions associated with the terminate operation thanks to Toshi's contribution. We concluded that the current model is somewhat mixed in that the "terminating" states are considered sub-states, and "terminated" is a base-state. The two approaches seem to be to either make everything related to termination a sub-state, or to make everything related to termination a base state. * The sub-state approach simplifies clients that are not concerned with termination-related states, and allows some state transitions, e.g. Oberserved::Terminating -> Completed which we may actually want to permit. It also allows some transitions, e.g. Pending::Terminating -> Observed that we do not want. * The additional base state approach means clients must explictly manage the termination-related states, but it makes various transitions more explict, and helps avoid undesired transitions. It complicates the case where an agreement completes normally while in a terminating state. We'll address this by allowing a domain to sub-state Terminated to indicate a normal completion prior to termination completion. Sub-stating Terminated may be something many domains want to do anyway to indicate additional information about the agreement's state post-termination (e.g. rolled back, etc.). The groupd decided upon introducing new base states. Toshi will write this up, and Jim will review, particularly w.r.t. the descriptive text related to Terminated sub-states.

2 1

telecon on 3/29
by Jim Pruyne 29 Mar '06

29 Mar '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 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. --- Jim

4 3

telecon on 3/22
by Jim Pruyne 22 Mar '06

22 Mar '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 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. --- Jim

3 2

minutes from 3/15 telecon
by Jim Pruyne 17 Mar '06

17 Mar '06

Are attached. We'll meet next week at the usual time. --- Jim Attendees --------- Christopher Dabrowski Toshi Nakata Jim Pruyne Asit Dan Heiko Ludwig Wolfgang Zeigler Discussion ---------- - GGF in Tokyo session scheduling needs to be done. Everyone's goal is to finish up the spec. by this time with a session to discuss. Two follow-up sessions continuing discussions on networking and perhaps on CIM in domain languages. Also a request for presentation on "functional specification" for terms to get dynamic agreements. - Comment row 21: On terminate operation: concern here is that there may be penalties associated with termination, but this is domain dependent. Terminate might still be followed by a destroy operation. The proposal is also to introduce a agreement state called terminated in section 7.1 that says that additional penalty may associated with entering the terminated state. Updates may require changes in the schema (e.g. in section 9.5). The new port type for the terminate operation would be introduced around section 9.4. We also need to introduce some discussion of the relationship between terminate and wsrl:Destroy. Toshi to start to pursue some of these updates, and send the proposed changes to the mailing list. - Comment row 22: 1) Use of Id was inconsistent. Decided to use "Id" everywhere, and made the appropriate changes. 2) Changed to TemplateId 3) Asking Heiko to double check this. And, we need to address the whole area of how we define our namespaces. JSDL uses the sort of namespac definition we use in other places, so we should continue to use this form, but will need to update the date before the final release. - Comment row 13: Using Asit's proposed text here. Will see if we can add some additional text below to use this example for assesment interval.

3 4

Re: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '06

Hi Bill, One more comment. Scope section says > This Working Group will define two Web Service interfaces. The first > interface deals with the agreement on a particular transport protocol > used for a data movement. The second interface defines the invocation > of the data movement itself, and the associated aspects of > reliability, transfer scheduling, granularity, performance settings, > control, and progress. Are you familiar with WS-Agreement specification by GRAAP-WG? Can you include investigation of applicability of WS-Agreement to your interface as an WG's activity? Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Thank you very much for revising WG charter document. > In general, it sounds good to me. > > The following is my comments; > > (1) Goals section > Given that GFSG is now asking all WG/RG co-chairs to maintain web based > "Living Charter" (see attached OGSA-WG example), I recommend to > organize goals section based on deliverable documents. > > Goals section has list of documents and each document has > - title > - abstract > - type > - milestones (date for first draft, public comment, publication) > > (2) transport document > Goals section says this WG will create "transport document" but > focus/purpose and scope sections don't mention this. Please > explain what is transport document in these previous sections. > > (3) 7 Q&A document > Please update and send out 7 Q&A document as well as charter. > You need to provide both to your area director for WG approval. > > (4) reference > > "OGSA WSRF Basic Profile Rendering 1.0, GFD.59, T. Maguire, D. Snelling, > Global Grid Forum, January 2006" > > should be > > "[OGSA WSRF BP] OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0, Foster, I., Maguire, T., > and Snelling, D. Global Grid Forum, GWD-R, September 2005. > http://www.ggf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/Oct-2005/draft-ggf-ogsa-ws…" > > > (5) Management issues > I would add the following sentence to this section; > > The WG will have joint review discussion with the OGSA-WG and the > OGSA-D-WG before every milestone. > > (5) DMI > The Desktop Management Interface (DMI) is rather well known in > IT industry. Do you have any other alphabet soup (e.g. Interface > of Data Movement: IDM). > > p.s. > OGSA-WG will have interim F2F meeting in San Francisco Bay Area > from April 4-7. If you want to have session at this F2F meeting > please provide agenda and how long do you need. > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/200604F2F_session > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > William E. Allcock wrote: > >> Ok, next iteration is attached. We tried to address the comments we had >> received so far. >> >> Bill >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-dmis-bof(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-dmis-bof@ggf.org] On >>> Behalf Of Robert B. Wood >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:07 AM >>> To: Michel Drescher >>> Cc: allcock(a)mcs.anl.gov; dmis-bof(a)ggf.org >>> Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter >>> >>> In my opinion, "4th party data transfer" as a term such as described >>> below offers more debate than value. To my understanding, a 3rd >>> party copy operation is a data transfer between two data stores that >>> is initiated by [at least] one of the data stores or devices >>> themselves, without the aid or instruction of the user or their >>> server/application code. It was originally coined in the realm of >>> data backup. >>> >>> When an agent of the user (including the user him or herself) >>> initiates a data transfer and the data transfer path includes the >>> user's system, that is a first party operation. When an agent >>> initiates a data transfer directly between two data stores or >>> devices, without placing their server in the data stream, this is an >>> extended data movement operation; what is referred to as extended >>> copy or serverless backup in the data backup realm. >>> >>> The usage of these terms is pretty well codified in the SCSI-3 >>> specification and implemented in storage products. >>> I'm not suggesting that management of agents, like the "truly >>> independent service" that Michel describes is trivial, in fact the >>> data security aspects can be quite challenging. Also the line >>> between direct control and independent operations is pretty fuzzy, as >>> data movements rarely occur without some user involvement, be it >>> simply an exersize of a service level agreement with the data storage >>> service provider[s]. >>> >>> Just a couple of comments to the comments to the comments ... Bob >>> >>> Michel Drescher wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> some comments, related to the comments you put in the >>> >>> >>> charter document: >>> >>>> 4th party data transfer: >>>> I see 3 different scenarios for data movement. Let's assume >>> >>> >>> we have a >>> >>>> (data) source and a (data) destination. We also have a user that >>>> wants data moved. If the user is the source, we have a direct pull >>>> case, if the user is the destination, then we have a direct push >>>> case. If the user tells the source to move some data to the >>>> destination, then this is 3rd party push, if the user tells the >>>> destination to get some data, then this is 3rd party pull. >>>> Well, if the user tells a truly independent service to initiate a >>>> data transfer from source to target, then this is very >>> >>> >>> similar to 3rd >>> >>>> party data transfer, but different enough as there is a 4th >>> >>> >>> instance >>> >>>> participating in the data movement. >>>> >>>> Transport protocols: >>>> Yes I meant application level protocols from a network >>> >>> >>> point of view, >>> >>>> such as GridFTP, HTTP, FTP, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding the timeline: >>>> The short term planning is ambitious, but manageable, I think, >>>> especially if we can appreciate broad contribution support. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Michel >>>> >>>> On 13 Mar 2006, at 22:41, William E. Allcock wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> Michel and I have updated the charter based on discussions >>> >>> >>> that took >>> >>>>> place >>>>> at GGF16. They are already scheduling slots for next GGF, so we >>>>> need to >>>>> ratify this charter ASAP and become a full fledged working >>> >>> >>> group. The >>> >>>>> charter is short, only a couple of pages of text and a table with >>>>> goals and >>>>> timelines. This shouldn't take long, so please take a few >>> >>> >>> minutes >>> >>>>> now and >>>>> review this. >>>>> >>>>> In particular we would like comments on: >>>>> >>>>> - Do you agree with the focus and scope >>>>> - Do you think the Goals and timeline are reasonable? >>> >>> >>> Are we missing >>> >>>>> anything? >>>>> - Which documents / implementations would you be willing >>> >>> >>> to work on? >>> >>>>> Thanks, and I hope to see you in Tokyo. >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> William E. Allcock >>>>> Argonne National Laboratory >>>>> Bldg 221, Office B-139 >>>>> 9700 South Cass Ave >>>>> Argonne, IL 60439-4844 >>>>> Email: allcock(a)mcs.anl.gov >>>>> Office Phone: +1-630-252-7573 >>>>> Office Fax: +1-630-252-1997 >>>>> Cell Phone: +1-630-854-2842 >>>>> >>>>> <charter-v3.doc> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Bob Wood >>> Network Storage Architecture Office >>> Sun Microsystems Inc. >>> >>> 303.395.3801 (x43011) >>> Robert.B.Wood(a)Sun.com >>> >>>

2 1

telecon on 3/15
by Jim Pruyne 15 Mar '06

15 Mar '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 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. --- Jim

3 2

Negotiation/GGF17?
by Omer F Rana 12 Mar '06

12 Mar '06

Hi, At the last GGF in Athens, Wolfgang and Toshi mentioned that there was some discussion on gathering negotiation requirements for WS-Agreement, and that an "information" document was being produced for release in the near future. Is this document already available for comment? I was also wondering if there is likely to be a session on GRAAP at GGF17. regards Omer -- http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/O.F.Rana/index.html / work-fax:+44(0)29-2087-4598 work:+44(0)29-2087-5542 / other:+44(0)7956-299981 / distributed collaborative computing / room n2.14 / school of computer science / cardiff university queen's buildings / newport road / cardiff cf24 3aa / wales / uk

2 1

Minutes from 3/8 telecon
by Jim Pruyne 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

Are attached. We'll meet next week as usual. --- Jim Attendees --------- Christopher Dabrowski Toshi Nakata Jim Pruyne Omer Rana Asit Dan Heiko Ludwig Discussion ---------- - What do we need to do about WSRF spec. things that we have imported? Jim to contact Dave Snelling - Comment #13 from Toshi's spreadsheet: Definition of assessment interval is unclear. "Alternatively" is also confusing. Asit to look into this and come back with a proposed improved language on next week's call. - Comment #14: Dropped the word "MAY" - Comment #16: Approved Toshi's proposed correction. - Comment #17: Added some clarifying text. - Comment #18: We do not feel that WS-Name needs to be explicitly referenced, particularly as we're not confident of the current state of WS-Name. - Comment #20: Part 1) Same as how we are addressing Comment 13. Part 2) we do not want to specify this as there are too many choices. - Comment #12: Signatures, etc. are outside the scope, but may be a good idea in many cases. Similar wrt third party assessment. See Section 11.

2 1

[Fwd: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 2/8 telecon]
by Jim Pruyne 08 Mar '06

08 Mar '06

Forward of Toshi's most recent comment tracking spreadsheet. --- Jim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 2/8 telecon Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 01:33:31 +0900 From: Toshiyuki Nakata <nakata(a)mtg.biglobe.ne.jp> Reply-To: t-nakata(a)cw.jp.nec.com Organization: NEC Corporation To: Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne(a)hp.com> CC: GRAAP-WG <graap-wg(a)gridforum.org> References: <43EA1870.5060101(a)hp.com> Public Comment List updated. Toshi Jim Pruyne wrote: > They are attached. Next week is GGF, so there will be no conference > call. We'll plan to have one the following week, on the 22nd, unless no > one is ready to do so soon after GGF. Also, and updated version of the > spec. from today's call will be uploaded to grid-forge in a moment. > > --- Jim > >

1 0