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. --- Jim Minutes from Feb. 23 '05 Teleconference Attendees --------- Takuya Araki Heiko Ludwig Jon Rofrano Wolfgang Zeigler Toshiyuki Nakata Asit Dan Agenda ------ Public comment period is over. Issue 8 (continued from last time): Much discussion about roles and which roles need to be specified explicitly in the context. Result is that this is a two-party agreement only, so the agreement initiator and provider define those two roles. This validates the definition of those two roles in the context as currently defined. **Action: We will augment the guarantee terms with which party is obligated and the obligee for each guarantee by role (initiator or provider). Also implies a response to issue #32. Now that obligation is specific, there's no need for the AgreementInitiatorIsServiceConsumer flag in the context. Issue 9 (and issue 14): Asit: Things we use are a matter of "public record" in the sense that it is visible to everyone. Toshi: But can we not use the information in them without naming them explictly. **Action: 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 (section 1.1.1). Remove the MAY be composed entries. Add column where we are explict about version that will be used. (Revisit this at beginning of next week). Minutes from Feb. 14 '05 Teleconference Attendees --------- Toshiyuki Nakata Heiko Ludwig Jim Pruyne Takuya Araki Asit Dan Agenda ------ Issue 2: Decided not enough participants to fully address the asynchronous binding issues on this call. Issue 3: 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. Issue 4: on how do we know that terms are fulfilled? 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. Issue 5: On why is expiration time part of the context? Agreed that it is not safe to always assume that it is provided as part of a higher-level structure such as a WSRF service? So, if needed the expiration time should be part of the agreement document. So, why in the context instead of a service description term? Asit: at least it does need to be defined how one fills in this field. Heiko: Also, it doesn't apply to the service, it applies to the agreement, so it isn't really a "service description term." **Action: leave it in place, capture this discussion, add justifying statements to the document. Issue 6: ZeroOrMore needed? Should this be provided as an additional cardinality in the compositors? This is adopted from WS-Policy, should we stay in synch. with it? What scenarios exist that support the use of ZeroOrMore? We also don't support arbitrary cardinality choices (e.g. "2 out of 5"), so we already don't strive to handle all of these. **Action: Leave it as is unless someone can come up with a strong use-case supporting it. Issue 7: Too complex. No easy way to address this. We can take this as a guiding principle as we address other comments. Also, it can be a statement on the type of presentation, and a more readable doc. (primer) is needed. 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. Issue 8: AgreementInitiatorIsServiceConsumer why is this here? Heiko to give a specific proposal/use case where this is needed.
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)
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
Heiko:Thank you very much for your comments. Revised version attached. Best Regards Toshi Heiko Ludwig wrote:
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 中田 登志之 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)
Hi for item 10 Jim mentioned. | Update table on page 6 (section |1.1.1). Remove the MAY be composed entries. Add column where we are |explict about version that will be used. (Revisit this at beginning |of next week). I've tried to make a candidate of the table ((I've put the old table and the wording with the new one after it. Apologies for the weird format. I am not an Word expert..)) Problem is I am not sure whether the current WS-Agreement spec is comosable with the newest spec. Comments would be appreciated. Best regards Toshi 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.
--- Jim
-- We have moved to a new Office!! Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 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)
Given the different wording that is used in the various standardisation bodies, I think that it would be good to explicitly state something like "These are draft documents, and are not yet completed standards. As such, they may be subject to change." This would save people not familiar with OASIS or W3C terminology from getting the wrong idea. Jon. On Feb 28, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
Hi for item 10 Jim mentioned.
| Update table on page 6 (section |1.1.1). Remove the MAY be composed entries. Add column where we are |explict about version that will be used. (Revisit this at beginning |of next week).
I've tried to make a candidate of the table ((I've put the old table and the wording with the new one after it. Apologies for the weird format. I am not an Word expert..))
Problem is I am not sure whether the current WS-Agreement spec is comosable with the newest spec. Comments would be appreciated.
Best regards Toshi
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.
--- Jim
-- We have moved to a new Office!! Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 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)
<Relationship to other WS.doc>
Hi: Thank you very much for the feedback. Should we put them in the table or in the main spec? Best Regards Toshi (5.2 hours till the telecon .. Apologies if I don7t make it..) Jon MacLaren wrote:
Given the different wording that is used in the various standardisation bodies, I think that it would be good to explicitly state something like "These are draft documents, and are not yet completed standards. As such, they may be subject to change." This would save people not familiar with OASIS or W3C terminology from getting the wrong idea.
Jon.
On Feb 28, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
Hi for item 10 Jim mentioned.
| Update table on page 6 (section |1.1.1). Remove the MAY be composed entries. Add column where we are |explict about version that will be used. (Revisit this at beginning |of next week).
I've tried to make a candidate of the table ((I've put the old table and the wording with the new one after it. Apologies for the weird format. I am not an Word expert..))
Problem is I am not sure whether the current WS-Agreement spec is comosable with the newest spec. Comments would be appreciated.
Best regards Toshi
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.
--- Jim
-- We have moved to a new Office!! Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 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)
<Relationship to other WS.doc>
-- Toshiyuki Nakata t-nakata@cw.jp.nec.com +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 8-22-60210)
Some people will just glance at the table rather than reading the whole text - so I think you should put it in the table. Jon. On Feb 28, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
Hi: Thank you very much for the feedback. Should we put them in the table or in the main spec?
Best Regards Toshi (5.2 hours till the telecon .. Apologies if I don7t make it..)
Jon MacLaren wrote:
Given the different wording that is used in the various standardisation bodies, I think that it would be good to explicitly state something like "These are draft documents, and are not yet completed standards. As such, they may be subject to change." This would save people not familiar with OASIS or W3C terminology from getting the wrong idea.
Jon.
On Feb 28, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
Hi for item 10 Jim mentioned.
| Update table on page 6 (section |1.1.1). Remove the MAY be composed entries. Add column where we are |explict about version that will be used. (Revisit this at beginning |of next week).
I've tried to make a candidate of the table ((I've put the old table and the wording with the new one after it. Apologies for the weird format. I am not an Word expert..))
Problem is I am not sure whether the current WS-Agreement spec is comosable with the newest spec. Comments would be appreciated.
Best regards Toshi
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.
--- Jim
-- We have moved to a new Office!! Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 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)
<Relationship to other WS.doc>
-- Toshiyuki Nakata t-nakata@cw.jp.nec.com +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 8-22-60210)
participants (5)
-
Heiko Ludwig -
Jim Pruyne -
Jon MacLaren -
Toshiyuki Nakata -
Toshiyuki Nakata