Dear GRAAPians we had two productive sessions at OGF 25 in Catania last week. The slides of the two sessions have been uploaded to the gridforge space of GRAAP along with the minutes and a presentation of "A lightweight annotation approach of WS-Agreement based specifications" which was given by Ioannis Kotsiopoulos. We continued the work on the experience document, the next draft version taking into account the recommendations and requests of the GFSG will be available soon. We also continued the discussion of the negotiation. Based on the outcome of OGF 24 a first prototype implementation was presented. Since a number of the participants will meet again in Dagstuhl in two weeks for a seminar on SLAs we decided to have two half day work group meetings there to finalise the experience document and the initial document on negotiation. I attach the minutes of the two sessions to this mail for your convenience. Best regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Ziegler www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI) Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258 SmartLM - Software License Technology for Grids, Clouds, SOA: www.smartlm.eu CoreGRID Network of Excellence www.coregrid.net Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms Grid Resource Allocation Agreement Working Group (GRAAP-WG) Session minutes OGF 25 March 2-6, 2009 Catania, Italy Minute taker: Dominic Battré GRAAP Session #1: Experience Document ------------------------------------- [Details: see slides on GridForge [1]] - Progress since last OGF - sent survey to various projects, received 7 replies - had discussions about negotiation on top of WS-Agreement and decided not to wait for WS-Agreement version 2 but create extension that allows multi-round negotiation without breaking compatibility -> need extension of states but that does not break compliance to WS-Agreement - Experience document - presentation of structure of document (see GridForge [2]) - Open issues -> who will work on what? - Rationale for writing the document: Oliver, Wolfgang - Some project descriptions currently blank, Dominic will check whether questionnaires provide sufficient input. Otherwise fall back to the people specified below: - Akogrimo (Bastian Koller) -> fill questionnaire - BREIN (Bastian) - BEinGRID BEs (Igor) - JSS - SmartLM (Oliver & Wolfgang) - Section about generic WS-Agreement frameworks -> coordinated by Dominic -> write for each framework: - dependencies (middleware stack, specifications) - ... - Wolfgang will pass list of items to Dominic & Oliver for completion and generation of questionnaire - forward questionnaire to - WSAG4J -> Oliver - BREIN framework -> Bastian - NegMgr -> Dominic - see below - Section about interoperation Testing -> Dominic & Oliver -> coordinated by Oliver - Comments from Projects taken from survey -> Dominic - Suggestion for new section: add analysis, which parts are used by implementations and which parts are not used -> Igor - Further procedure: first we generate a beta version of the document, then circulate to everybody who gave input (for updates/changes) - input from GFSG regarding interoperability demonstration: - Need true interoperability of two independent code bases -> Both use same template - Issue: Hosting environments incompatible - adapters are ok to circumvent incompatibilities of hosting environments -> demonstration will be job submission with best effort jobs - we will include an interoperable template in experience document, afterwards we will write a new document discussing various use cases and interoperability - Discussion on "WS-Agreement Frameworks" section in experience document - have created list of criteria -> Wolfgang sends this to Oliver & Dominic for another iteration - possible answers to several questions will be: "automatically handled by framework", "can be implemented in domain specific implementation", "not supported" - Should we found a new group for Negotiation? -> no, just add an extension since Negotiation is based on WS-Agreement 1.0 and only requires small changes resulting in WS-Agreement 1.1 - update Charta to include Negotiation (Wolfgang) - GFSG expressed desire to specify term languages (eg. for Advance Reservation) - Some topics shall be addressed at SLA Workshop in Dagstuhl: - 1/2 day on Microspec for advanced reservation as JSDL Extension (WSDL files), will be passed to JSDL working groups - 1/2 day on negotiation (definition of WSDL files) - Presentation by Ioannis Kotsiopoulos, UoM - SLA terms/metrics/... for domains are NOT specified in WS-Agreement -> Proposal of semantic annotation - semantic annotation = reference to ontology - provides semantic interoperability - no need to change WS-Agreement - Annotation by SAWSDL, is backwards compatible - tools: SASLA4j library - Comments: very interesting, might fit well into metrics of WS-Agreement GRAAP Session #2: Negotiation ------------------------------------- - Implementation for Negotiation exists for SmartLM based on WSAG4J framework - started with negotiation - will be extended to re-negotiation - see slides for details - legal issues need to be discussed (how long is old agreement valid in case of renegotiation) - discussion: - during iterations of negotiation the creation constraints remain the same - is the document passed during the negotiation and the template really the same? -> seems ok - should negotiate be allowed to return >1 template at a time? - yes, simpler for a client to handle this - should negotiate accept >1 template as parameter? - no, user can send several requests sequentially. Advantage: easier for the agreement responder to find out what the agreement initiator wants. -> requests to change: - NegotiateOutputType: - minOccurs="0" - maxOccurs="unbound" - superseding state missing - will be added -> Oliver + Wolfgang - How do we address PendingAgreementFactories? - First ignore this, then ask for input on first version of WSDL files from GRAAP mailing list and work on PendingAgreementFactory in parallel - Do we need an exception for the provider to tell that it is not willing to renegotiate any further? -> No, WS-Agreement has too limited exception features, needs a general overhaul there as well -> it could be put in the final agreement ("this is the last offered agreement") - Usecases for validation of (re-)negotiation: - Graceful termination - Service Responder wants to make changes - Service Initiator wants to make changes - Broker Scenario (broker collects offers) - quote is accepted/rejected / no quote generated - maybe more in wiki - is an extension of agreement context needed? - tracking quotes? - superseding of agreements - maybe, Oliver creates proposal -> proposal of document ready by SLA workshop in Dagstuhl (Oliver & Wolfgang) GRAAP Session #3: ----------------- cancelled