Ian,
Your points are very good and absolutely
valid. Absolutely. Great points.
While you and I might disagree with such
words as “far from adequate” and even “tiny” in your
subsequent email, we agree that it’s very important to scope this
properly, for the points you articulated.
And to clarify: I don’t think it’s
necessarily those people most closely connected with the effort who might think
or claim that the scope is broader than it should be in reality. (Is that
sentence parsable?) I have found that the people on the WG calls and those
people implementing the spec generally have the proper perspective on this
work, in my opinion. Of course, the issue now regards MY perspective :^)
Again, I think you make a great point that
we have sure that vendors don’t just implement this Base HPC Profile and
claim they’re done. We’ve always thought that a key to the overall
HPC Profile will be the extensions – making sure that EVERYONE
understands this point is critical for this effort.
-- Marty
From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster@mcs.anl.gov]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006
5:49 PM
To: Marty Humphrey
Cc: 'Subramaniam, Ravi';
ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org;
Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG]
[ogsa-wg] HPC profile questionaire draft
Marty:
Please don't apologize: you should never let a comment from me go without
response (-:
I didn't mean to suggest that the HPC Profile should not be passed to the GGF
editor.
However, while we should certainly celebrate our success in creating the
profile and getting people to implement it, I think it is critically important
that we be explicit about how tiny a step we have taken. Otherwise, we risk
backlash from the "public" (when they look at this spec we are making
such a fuss over) and also, potentially, a loss of focus from the vendors who
we need to work towards true interop. For some vendors, having a spec that they
can say they are compliant with--and then extend in nonstandard ways to address
security, staging, etc., etc.--will be more important than continuing the hard
work of specification.We don't want to let that happen.
Ian.
Marty Humphrey wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t let
that “far from adequate” go by without response. For the real
business scenarios that we have been pursuing, I do not believe that the HPC
Profile is “far from adequate”. This has been reinforced by our
experience talking with people at SC.
Post-thanksgiving, our WG will refine the
HPC Profile somewhat, but I don’t believe that we will have a significant
effort before pushing it to the GGF editor.
As you know, its design is one of
extensibility and composability. I believe that the HPC “Base
Profile” will be sufficient for many real business use cases. I also
believe that the planned extensions are important for many situations.
- Marty
From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces@ogf.org]
On Behalf Of Ian Foster
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006
3:26 PM
To: Subramaniam, Ravi
Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org;
Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG]
[ogsa-wg] HPC profile questionaire draft
I want to understand what people think we need for
real interop. The HPC Profile as currently defined seems far from adequate for
that purpose. We've mention staging and security as two issues. There are
presumably others.
Ian.
Subramaniam,
Hi Andrew,
One question could be “Is the
profile as it stands complete from your perspective? At least for the focus/business
areas or types of customers that you plan to implement for?”
The motivation is that depending on the
verticals (e.g. financial, pharma) there may be some issue that may need to be
resolved to be successful. In this way at least some target constituencies that
can best benefit from what is currently there can be determined. We can also
begin more targeted campaign at the OGF level towards
consumers/customers/end-users and providers in that segments. Building traction
in one of more specific segments may help build momentum for others.
From: ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Maguire_Tom@emc.com
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006
11:12 AM
To: grimshaw@cs.virginia.edu; ogsa-wg@gridforum.org; ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org; ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org
Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] HPC profile
questionaire draft
Is there enough specificity in the profile
for your engineers to successfully implement? If not what do you need?
Tom
_______________________________________________
Tom Maguire
+1(845) 729-4806
From: ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Grimshaw
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006
10:21 AM
To: 'Ogsa-Wg'; ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org; ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org
Subject: [ogsa-wg] HPC profile
questionaire draft
All,
At the OGSA F2F I
was tasked with coming up with a series of questions about the HPC profile
experiences to go into a zoomerang, so that an experiences paper could be
generated – either for HPC profile, JSDL, and/or BES.
Here is a start.
Note – comment on/add questions. Do NOT answer them!!! That will come
later.
1) Will the
HPC-Profile be useful to your organization/company? Explain.
2) Will you engineer
your products to be hpc-profile compliant?
3) In your opinion,
are there any unresolved ambiguities? Explain?
4) Thoughts on the
next profile? Anything in particular from BES or JSDL (or other specification)
that you would like to include.
5) Approximately how many
person-days did it take you to implement the HPC-profile?
6) What would you
change in the HPC-profile? Why?
Remember this is a
STRAWMAN ONLY for discussion! Please add, suggest removal, or modify the above.
A
Andrew Grimshaw
Professor of Computer
Science
434-982-2204
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg
-- Ian Foster, Director, Computation InstituteArgonne National Laboratory & University Chicago