- graap-wg - lists.ogf.org

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

telecon on 3/8
by Jim Pruyne 08 Mar '06

08 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

1 0

[Fwd: [ogsa-wg] CFP: Special Session on "Service Level Agreements" at HPCC-06]
by Jim Pruyne 06 Mar '06

06 Mar '06

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ogsa-wg] CFP: Special Session on "Service Level Agreements" at HPCC-06 Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 12:55:16 +0100 From: Benno Overeinder <bjo(a)cs.vu.nl> To: ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org Please accept our apologies for cross-posting. ********************************************************************** Call for Papers: Special Session on "Service Level Agreements" at HPCC-06 In distributed environments, applications often make use of pre-defined resources (and services) defined statically at the start of application execution. However, such resources may either not be appropriate or available every time execution is requested -- therefore requiring the use of a registry service to discover resources dynamically. It is also possible that resources may be owned by institutions/individuals within another administrative domain -- outside the direct control of the application manager. It is therefore necessary to make use of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to provide the interface between application users making demands on resources, and resource providers determining what should be made available for external use. An SLA may define: (i) requirements that such an application would place on resources (and services) owned by another third party; (ii) check whether these requirements have been met during use. The complexity of an SLA can vary from a static description of resource names (specified in terms of IP addresses) to complex constraints defined as functions that can be evaluated at deployment time. The aim of this special session is to bring together researchers in high performance computing, networking infrastructure and application sciences to demonstrate how SLAs may be defined, managed, updated and used. The following topics provide some guidance on content appropriate for this special session: * Description techniques for SLAs * Static vs. dynamic SLAs * Validation techniques for SLA parameters * Matchmaking approaches for SLA comparisons * Discovering resources based on SLA descriptions * Comparison of SLA and policy descriptions * Penalty clauses for SLAs + legal issues * Managing user expectations via SLAs * SLA descriptions and Quality of Service * Multi-party SLAs * Aggregating multiple SLAs * SLAs in Virtual Organizations (both multi-party and multiple SLAs) * Negotiating SLAs dynamically * SLA-based co-scheduling and resource reservation * SLAs and Registry Services * SLA-based trust management SUBMISSION GUIDELINES Submissions must include an abstract, five to ten keywords, the e-mail address of the corresponding author and should not exceed ten pages including tables and figures. All paper submissions must already be formatted according to the guidelines for Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) and represent unpublished and original work. Manuscripts must be submitted in PDF format, usage of LaTeX as a document preparation system is strongly encouraged. Submission of a paper should be regarded as an undertaking that, should the paper be accepted, at least one of the authors will register for the conference and present the work. Submissions to HPCC-06 will be conducted electronically on the conference website. IMPORTANT DATES Paper submission: March 13, 2006 Acceptance notification: May 29, 2006 Camera ready version: June 26, 2006 Conference: September 13-15, 2006 PUBLICATION The accepted papers will be published in proceedings of the HPCC-06 conference by Springer's Lecture Note in Computer Science (LNCS). SPECIAL SESSION WEB SITE http://www.cs.vu.nl/~bjo/sla/sla-cfp.html CONFERENCE WEB SITE http://hpcc06.lrr.in.tum.de/ http://www.hpcc-conference.org/2006/ -- Benno Overeinder IIDS Group, Section Computer Systems, voice: (+31) 20 598 7634 Department of Computer Science, Faculty fax: (+31) 20 598 7653 of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam e-mail: bjo(a)cs.vu.nl Boelelaan 1081a, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam

1 0