minutes from 1/11 telecon
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.
In response to the comment - "several comments"; action item 3: The XQueryX standard (XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)) became a candidate recommendation in November. The reference should be: http://www.w3.org/TR/xqueryx/ Let's use this reference. 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. +1 646 675 8469 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/ Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne@hp.com> Sent by: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org 01/11/2006 11:03 AM To GRAAP-WG <graap-wg@gridforum.org> cc Subject [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon 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.
Dear All, please find the updated version of the spec. at: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-AgreementSpecifica... Further comments inline. Philipp. Jim Pruyne wrote:
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 Done. - To Remove: SNAP Done. - Also to update to the proper link for various specs. Done.
- 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. Done. - 2. Already has been addressed. Philipp to double check. Done. - 3. Heiko to investigate status. - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment. Yes, that is correct.
I included some new references: - WSDL - XML Schema - RFC2119 In addition, I marked some references within the document which, to my opinion, have to be used within the text or which have to be removed if not used at all. I suggest that people check whether this is necessary. This includes: - ComputeJobs - WS-BaseNotification - XML-ns This covers also "several comments", issue 7. Furthermore I tried to bring the references into the right order (depending on their first appearance).
Apologies everyone for not showing up on this week's telecon. (Had intended to but had dozed off....) Please find attached the excel comments list which 1)At last includes all the comments within the comments period. 2)Tried to reflect the status of this week's telecon. Best Regards Toshi ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Wieder Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:31 AM To: graap-wg@gridforum.org Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
Dear All,
please find the updated version of the spec. at: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-Agre ementSpecificationDraft.doc/en/22
Further comments inline.
Philipp.
Jim Pruyne wrote:
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 Done. - To Remove: SNAP Done. - Also to update to the proper link for various specs. Done.
- 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. Done. - 2. Already has been addressed. Philipp to double check. Done. - 3. Heiko to investigate status. - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment. Yes, that is correct.
I included some new references: - WSDL - XML Schema - RFC2119
In addition, I marked some references within the document which, to my opinion, have to be used within the text or which have to be removed if not used at all. I suggest that people check whether this is necessary. This includes: - ComputeJobs - WS-BaseNotification - XML-ns This covers also "several comments", issue 7.
Furthermore I tried to bring the references into the right order (depending on their first appearance).
Dear Toshi, thank you for maintaining the list. Item 38 is also done, except for the following references (see also my previous email): - ComputeJobs - WS-BaseNotification - XML-ns These are not used within the text yet, but I left them in case people think that they should. Best regards, Philipp. Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
Apologies everyone for not showing up on this week's telecon. (Had intended to but had dozed off....)
Please find attached the excel comments list which 1)At last includes all the comments within the comments period. 2)Tried to reflect the status of this week's telecon.
Best Regards Toshi ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Wieder Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:31 AM To: graap-wg@gridforum.org Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
Dear All,
please find the updated version of the spec. at: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-Agre ementSpecificationDraft.doc/en/22 Further comments inline.
Philipp.
Jim Pruyne wrote:
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 Done. - To Remove: SNAP Done. - Also to update to the proper link for various specs. Done.
- 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. Done. - 2. Already has been addressed. Philipp to double check. Done. - 3. Heiko to investigate status. - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment. Yes, that is correct.
I included some new references: - WSDL - XML Schema - RFC2119
In addition, I marked some references within the document which, to my opinion, have to be used within the text or which have to be removed if not used at all. I suggest that people check whether this is necessary. This includes: - ComputeJobs - WS-BaseNotification - XML-ns This covers also "several comments", issue 7.
Furthermore I tried to bring the references into the right order (depending on their first appearance).
Dear Philipp: Thank you very much for checking. Updated the list as attached. Best Regards Toshi ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
-----Original Message----- From: Philipp Wieder [mailto:ph.wieder@fz-juelich.de] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:08 PM To: Toshiyuki Nakata Cc: graap-wg@gridforum.org Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
Dear Toshi,
thank you for maintaining the list. Item 38 is also done, except for the following references (see also my previous email): - ComputeJobs - WS-BaseNotification - XML-ns These are not used within the text yet, but I left them in case people think that they should.
Best regards, Philipp.
Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
Apologies everyone for not showing up on this week's telecon. (Had intended to but had dozed off....)
Please find attached the excel comments list which 1)At last includes all the comments within the comments period. 2)Tried to reflect the status of this week's telecon.
Best Regards Toshi ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
-----Original Message----- From: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Philipp Wieder Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:31 AM To: graap-wg@gridforum.org Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
Dear All,
please find the updated version of the spec. at: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-Agre ementSpecificationDraft.doc/en/22 Further comments inline.
Philipp.
Jim Pruyne wrote:
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 Done. - To Remove: SNAP Done. - Also to update to the proper link for various specs. Done.
- 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. Done. - 2. Already has been addressed. Philipp to double check. Done. - 3. Heiko to investigate status. - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment. Yes, that is correct.
I included some new references: - WSDL - XML Schema - RFC2119
In addition, I marked some references within the document which, to my opinion, have to be used within the text or which have to be removed if not used at all. I suggest that people check whether this is necessary. This includes: - ComputeJobs - WS-BaseNotification - XML-ns This covers also "several comments", issue 7.
Furthermore I tried to bring the references into the right order (depending on their first appearance).
participants (4)
-
Heiko Ludwig -
Jim Pruyne -
Philipp Wieder -
Toshiyuki Nakata