Toshi, by discussing and resolving comment 8, we simultaneously addressed comments 31 and 32. Maybe we can just add a referral from those comments to the answer to comment 8. Heiko ----- Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol. IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598 hludwig@us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160, mob. +1 646 236 9453 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/ Toshiyuki Nakata <t-nakata@cw.jp.nec.com> Sent by: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org 02/24/2005 02:31 AM Please respond to t-nakata To Jim Pruyne <pruyne@hpl.hp.com> cc GRAAP-WG <graap-wg@gridforum.org> Subject Re: [graap-wg] minutes from telecons (Feb. 14 and Feb. 23) Comment List Updated. Please note that the second issue we discussed today was Entry 10 and NOT entry 9. Jim Pruyne wrote:
All,
Attached are minutes from the last two telecons, on the 14th and 23rd of Feb. These deal almost entirely with handling comments we've received. Please not all Actions captures (with ** in front of them), and where ownership is explicit or implicit, update the entries in the tracker related to the comment. That tracker is at:
https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=461
We will resume our usual Mon. call times starting next week which would be 4:00 central time in the US. A reminder on that is hopefully forthcoming.
Will it be from 4:00 Central or from 5:00 Central?
--- Jim
Best Regards Toshi -- We have moved to a new Office!! Toshiyuki Nakata ????? Internet System Laboratories NEC t-nakata@cw.jp.nec.com 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60210) Fax +81-44-431-7681 (NEC Internal 22-60219) Comment-ID Title Posted By Status Resolution/Discussion 1 Changing Offers Toshiyuki Nakata Resolved Treat the normative part as correct. 2 Minor comments & asynchronous operations[ Reply ] Takuya Araki On discussion Discuss on the mailing-list. (especially wrt . Having it in the protocol or having it in the bindings) 3 Semantics of related agreements ill-defined[ Reply ] Heiko Ludwig (GGF12) Resolved (14thFeb) Related agreements agreed last weeks to be taken out, but some discussion was still going on. Not enough further argument to change this decision. **Could be a primer issue as used in a service description term. 4 How do we know that terms are fulfilled?[ Reply ] Heiko Ludwig (GGF12) Resolved (15thFeb) This seems to be outside the scope as it requires lots of further infrastructure. **Action: Add such information in the spec that says that enforcement is outside the scope. 5 Why is the termination time part of context?[ Reply ] Heiko Ludwig (GGF12) Resolved Because the expiration time refers to the whole of Agreement. **Action: leave it in place, capture this discussion, add justifying statements to the document. 6 ZeroOrMore needed[ Reply ] Heiko Ludwig (GGF12) Resolved Unless someone gives a clear Usecase of how this term is used, stick to the current proposal. 7 Specification too complex[ Reply ] Heiko Ludwig (GGF12) Resolved Spec. doesn't require that entire thing be used in every example, so complexity can be removed in specific cases. This can be more clearly stated. **Action: Can also reply that actual number of structures is not all that large. 8 AgreementIsProvider attribute[ Reply ] Heiko Ludwig (GGF12) Resolved(23rd Feb) Wewill augment the guarantee terms with which party is obligated and the obligee for each guarantee by role (initiator or provider). Alsoimplies a response to issue #32. Now that obligation is specific,there's no need for the AgreementInitiatorIsServiceConsumer flag in the context. 9 Related Agreements and Brokers[ Reply ] Heiko Ludwig (GGF12) To Be Discussed 10 Referred Specs[ Reply ] Komori Hitoshi Being Discussed We need to be explict about the state of the specs. that we refer to,including their version. Be clear where these are public but not ratified by any standards body. Update table on page 6 (section1.1.1). Remove the MAY be composed entries. Add column where we areexplict about version that will be used. (Revisit this at beginning of next week). 11 Three "nits" Jon MacLaren To Be Discussed 12 WS-Agreement spec - proposed refactoring Jon MacLaren To Be Discussed 13 Consistency of WSRF ResProp. based monitoring Jon MacLaren To Be Discussed 14 WS-Agreement dependent on less mature specs Jon MacLaren To Be Discussed cf Entry 9 15 Use of WS-ResourceProperties Jon MacLaren To Be Discussed 16 Organisation of runtime monitoring material Jon MacLaren To Be Discussed 17 No XML snippets for Resource Properties in S8 Jon MacLaren To Be Discussed 18 Inconsistent use of expiration / termination Jon MacLaren To Be Discussed 19 Figure 2 Tiziana Ferrari To Be Discussed 20 glossary and Figure 1 Tiziana Ferrari To Be Discussed 21 comments about Section 7 (run time states) Tiziana Ferrari To Be Discussed 22 definition of compliance in Section 6 Tiziana Ferrari To Be Discussed 23 Language problem in Section 5.1.1 Tiziana Ferrari To Be Discussed 24 creation contraints and serv. lev. Objectives Tiziana Ferrari To Be Discussed 25 Occurance of AssessmentInterval in Comp.Type Heiko Ludwig To Be Discussed 26 TerminalFault Tiziana Ferrari 27 Agreement name optional Mike Fisher 28 Consistent approach to Term Compositors Mike Fisher 29 Guarantee Terms Mike Fisher 30 Include base objective set for web services Asit Dan 31 ServiceProvider/ServiceCustomer explicit Heiko Ludwig 32 Obliged party attribute for terms Heiko Ludwig 33 Explain service reference use better Heiko Ludwig 34 Refining scope of Guarantee Terms Heiko Ludwig 35 Guarantee terms for best effort systems Heiko Ludwig 36 Business Value Table Heiko Ludwig 37 38 39 40