| Updated Date | ||||||||||
| Document Tracker | https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=71&category_id=659 | |||||||||
| Comment Tracker | https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=461 | |||||||||
| Draft | https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-AgreementSpecificationDraft.doc/en | |||||||||
| Other issues being Discussed | ||||||||||
| 37 | @ | Signature of Agreement | Karl and Jon | Being Discussed in the ML | This requires some extensibility on the input and output to the create agreement operations. Perhaps already covered in the current versions. **Action: Karl to review the current spec. in this area. |
Resolved? | @ | @ | @ | |
| 38 | @ | how
to specify the criticality of an extension |
Karl | @ | That
is, would an extension have to be processed, or may it be safely ignored if a provider doesn't understand them. Is there a community best-practice alredy in place or needed for this? |
Resolved? | @ | @ | @ | |
| 41 | @ | Termination | Toshi | Resolved | Is
WS-RF termination good enough, and the terminate operation could fail or be delayed because the agreement is not "completed" yet. Further termination could be done as extension. We could define an extension on the resource lifetime termination operation saying that we cannot terminate now because the agreement is on-going. Do we advocate in the spec. that the agreement resource SHOULD live as long as the obligations associated with the agreement? Consensus on the list is that this makes sense. |
@ | @ | Asit to send text to Toshi | Please sendc | |
| After GGF14 | ||||||||||
| 42 | @ | Complex Constraints If I want to write onormore of A, B, C in the Creation constraint, how can I do it ? | GGF14 | Being Discussed in the ML | Heiko brought
up the typeDefParticle asks for all, choice and sequence, plus group as the
top-level element. nestedParticle allows us to define a element straight away - and its type. The types localElement or topLevelElement would just allow to define an element, which could be good enough |
@ | @ | @ | @ | @ |
| 43 | @ | the
placeholder of the WS-RP properties for the SDT's. What had been raised was, "In most cases, if we use the AGreementProvider = Service Provider model, then most of it should be OK by assuming that we can look into the Agreement Provider for all the resource properties of the Agreement SDT's, but if sometimes we use the Agreement Provider as service client, this model might fall apart.." I |
GGF14 | To be discussed | @ | @ | @ | @ | @ | @ |
| 44 | @ | Chapter
7 Runtime states has 7.1 Agreement States 7.2 Service Runtime States 7.3 Gurantee States Which is fine.. on the other hand Section 9.5 Port type wsag:Agreement State only has 9.5.1 Resource Property wsag:ServiceTermStateList and 9.5.2 Resource Property wsag:GuaranteeTermStateList only. Perhaps another resource property named wsag:AgreementState is necessary? |
Toshi | Being Discussed | Add 9.5.1 before the current 9.5.1? | @ | @ | @ | @ | @ |