May 2011 - nml-wg - lists.ogf.org

Conference call today
by Freek Dijkstra 26 May '11

26 May '11

Jeroen wrote: > We have to see when we can have a new call. Our regular schedule would > have us at Thursday May 19th, however most of us will be at the Terena > conference. Otherwise we can schedule it for May 26th at the regular time? Jeroen reminded me about this call this morning; since the NMC call of today is cancelled, we can take the slot. However, since it is such a short notice, I propose to delay it one week so we also are just in between the NMC calls again. Thursday next week is a public holiday in the Netherlands, but I'll be present. If someone likes me to update them on the work, feel free to drop me a line, and we can use today's timeslot to fill each other in on the latest work. I would like to schedule another NML call on June 2th at UTC 15:00 = EDT 11:00 = 8:00 PDT = 17:00 CEST. Call: +1-734-615-7474 (Please use if you do not pay for Long Distance) or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0186145 On the agenda is a small summary of the presentations at TNC, and how to get the good ideas we've seen into the schema. Freek

1 0

OGF 32
by Freek Dijkstra 25 May '11

25 May '11

Hi, The next OGF meeting is Friday July 15 to Monday July 18 (yes, over the weekend) in Salt Lake City. Unfortunately, I have a prior appointment Sunday evening to Tuesday. This means I'll have to fly in on Thursday and leave on Saturday late morning already. Would it be a problem for anyone to schedule the NML sessions on Friday? If it is a problem, I will attend remotely. If not, I'll make it to Salt Lake. Freek

2 1

Re: [Nml-wg] urn:ogf:network specification
by Freek Dijkstra 09 May '11

09 May '11

[Hi Aaron, I'll reply on-list] Aaron Brown wrote: > It'd also be good to note that then > "urn:ogf:network:domain=...:node=..." specification was also > developed/used as part of OSCARS, not just perfSONAR. Thanks. Do you know of any specific references? I noticed that the IDC use was briefly described in http://www.controlplane.net/idcp-v1.1-ogf/draft-gwdi-nsi-idcp-2010-sep-01.p… as well. I have not found a document describing the allowed characters in perfSONAR/OSCARS/IDC (I'll be interested in that!) Freek

2 1

urn:ogf:network specification
by Freek Dijkstra 09 May '11

09 May '11

All, I finally written or updated three documents: 1. Delegation of urn:ogf to the OGF 2. Procedure for registration of namespaces within urn:ogf 3. Specification of urn:ogf:network (also attached) All documents can be found in the repository at http://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/urn-ogf-docs Only document #3 is in scope of the NML working group. I welcome feedback for all documents though. Delegation of urn:ogf to the OGF ================================ See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dijkstra-urn-ogf Please sent comment to me off-list or to the urn-nid(a)ietf.org mailing list. Procedure for registration of namespaces within urn:ogf ======================================================= See http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/artf6478 Please leave comments at this artifact or sent them to me off-list. Specification of urn:ogf:network ================================ See http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc16260 Please sent comments to the NML-WG mailing list or sent them to me off-list. I certainly appreciate feedback on the following two issues. Compatibility with GLIF and perfSONAR usage ------------------------------------------- The current syntax is compatible with both current usage, although it is now specified that recipients of a URN SHOULD NOT interpret the local part. This is a change from the existing use. Also, the document specifies that the following two URNs are NOT lexical equivalent. I have no opinion on this. Should this be equivalent or not? - urn:ogf:network:example.net:path:2011-0418 - urn:ogf:network:domain=example.net:path:2011-0418 International Characters ------------------------ No international characters are allowed. I actually worked out a solid schema (using RFC 5982 and NFKD normalisation that would allow quite a few code points, but still have a very simple URN comparison -- no decoding required.), but decided not to use it. I was finally convinced NOT to allow international characters by the following comments on the urn(a)ietf.org list: If you allow people to assign URNs as they prefer, they always tend to "invent" some semantic rules. At the end you have your database full of Identifiers like: [institution]-[division]-[collection-name]-[date]-[item-number] This goes fine many years. Till the day the collections are renamed or two divisions fusion under another name or renaming of the institution or ... Experiences like those are the reason why many colleagues with Long Term Archiving background propagate Identifiers without semantics --meaningless strings just for machines. IMHO that is the problem and not if those meaningful-names written in Kanji, Chinese, Arabic or Krill. Seriously I would allow ONLY numbers and 3-4 separator chars if I could define a new generation ID system. That is NOT "restrictive" but functional and problem free. (source: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn/current/msg01564.html) Regards, Freek

3 2

Conference call May 5th
by Jeroen van der Ham 05 May '11

05 May '11

Hello, I would like to schedule another NML call on May 5th at UTC 15:00 = EST 11:00 = 8:00 PDT = 17:00 CET. Call: +1-734-615-7474 (Please use if you do not pay for Long Distance) or +1-866-411-0013 (toll free US/Canada Only) Enter access code: 0186145 Agenda for today is progress on the schema document. Jeroen.

3 4

NML base in the rnc schema
by Roman Łapacz 04 May '11

04 May '11

Hi, please. take a look at the RNC schema of nml base that I've attached to this email. Any comments, updates and suggestions are welcome. regards, Roman

3 4

TNC2011 BoF "Provisioning infrastructure services on-demand (ISOD): beyond Grids and Clouds"
by Yuri Demchenko 02 May '11

02 May '11

Dear NSI/NML members, I thought that some people from NSI/NML will be interested to know about the TNC2011 BoF "Provisioning infrastructure services on-demand: beyond Grids and Clouds" (ISOD-BoF) that will held on Monday May 16th from 9:00-12:30 (two sessions with break). The BoF's goal is to present to the TERENA community developments in the area of on-demand infrastructure services provisioning that are currently going on in a number of projects, standardisation bodies, in particular OGF, and other international initiatives. Clouds are also positioned as on-demand services provisioning environment and discussion of the related activities on Cloud architecture and provisioning models development will also take place at the BoF. BoF description is available at https://tnc2011.terena.org/core/event/6 and appended below for your convenience. Agenda drafting is in the final stage. If you are interested to present your work at the BoF please contact me. We have a couple of slots available. Hope to see somebody of you at the BoF or during the conference. Regards, Yuri ----------------------------------------------- TNC2011 BoF - https://tnc2011.terena.org/core/event/6 9:00-12:30 Monday, May 16, 2011 Title: "Provisioning infrastructure services on-demand: beyond Grids and Clouds" Modern e-Science applications and high-technology industry regularly deal with large volumes of data that must be stored, processed and visualized. This requires dedicated high-speed network infrastructures, which can be provisioned on-demand to support all potential application scenarios. Most Grid/Cloud usage scenarios for collaboration can benefit from combined network and IT resources provisioning. This notion of provisioning an infrastructure on-demand not only improves performance, but also can address such issues as application-centric manageability, consistency of security services, and energy efficiency (which is emerging as a forefront issue). The infrastructure on-demand provisioning model requires that a number of services and resource management systems interoperate at different stages within the whole provisioning process. However, in current practice, different systems and provisioning stages are not connected into a single unified workflow what impedes the definition of a whole provisioning model. This results in a set of inconsistent, disjoint services that then require a significant amount of human intervention to manually integrate them into a single cohesive service. The problem of better supporting collaborative groups of people and wider user communities at all layers of networking and applications infrastructure remains unsolved. The BoF will try to look at future developments and future technologies to solve this problem. This BoF will provide a venue to discuss a wide spectrum of research and technology problems in provisioning infrastructure services on-demand, existing frameworks to support on-demand infrastructure services provisioning, and new emerging business models for infrastructure virtualisation, such as Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS). The BoF will host presentations from EU projects and activities such as GEANT3, GEYSERS, NOVI, OGF ISOD Research Group and facilitate information and experience dissemination and exchange with TERENA community.

1 0