September 2005 - ogsa-d-wg

RE: [ogsa-d-wg] Draft Charter for Data Movement Interface Standardization WG
by Dave Berry 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Hi Malcolm, I'd rather ask, what are the characteristics of a file that makes these file transfer mechanisms tractable? Then we can ask, to what extent can we generalise the mechanism? For example, if the key characteristics are that a file can be named and supports random access, then we might generalise the mechanism to include data in RAM (which would avoid unnecessary copying to disk). This case would be analogous to some operating systems which allow entities in RAM to be addressed as part of the file system. Conversely, if the mechanism can handle any named sequence of bytes, then it could presumably handle streaming data as well. Or if it requires other operations that are specific to the location of bytes on a disk (or tape), then the WG will restrict its attention to those cases. I would expect this group to place a strong requirement on the OGSA WG to provide a naming system that can specify whatever data sets this WG wants to move. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-d-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Malcolm Atkinson Sent: 14 September 2005 17:20 To: William E. Allcock; ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org; gsm-wg(a)ggf.org; byte-io-wg(a)ggf.org; Peter Kunszt; James Casey; Ravi Madduri Subject: RE: [ogsa-d-wg] Draft Charter for Data Movement Interface Standardization WG Hi Bill I agree that such a standard interface is needed. When you look at files I presume you consider files where ever they are, secondary or tertiary storage at least. When you say any dataa, then there is the possibility of trivial or large amounts of data between RAM, as well as data from files and databases with an enormous set of possibilities of the way it may be selected and identified. Eventually it gets close to Byte-IO, Streams (BoF) and InfoD etc. So I'm agreeing with you that if yu go beyond files then scope control is difficult. Would it be better to do the standardisation of file movement first and look at other forms of adta movement later? Malcolm >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org >[mailto:owner-ogsa-d-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of William E. Allcock >Sent: 14 September 2005 17:04 >To: ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org; gsm-wg(a)ggf.org; byte-io-wg(a)ggf.org; >Peter Kunszt; James Casey; Ravi Madduri >Subject: [ogsa-d-wg] Draft Charter for Data Movement >Interface Standardization WG > >Sorry for the re-send, I typoed the byte-io mail list. > >All, > >Sorry for the SPAM, but I sent this to the "likely suspects" who might >be interested. I have a proposed BOF (waiting for AD approval) to >discuss standardizing an interface for invoking data movement. There >are several of them out there already. CERN has the File Transfer >System (FTS), the gsm-wg has SRM copy, Globus has the Reliable File >Transfer (RFT) service, etc.. I don't think there will be >any argument >that there is a need for such standardization, the hard part will be >scoping the extent of what we will work on. For instance, all the >examples above are file based, but ideally, this interface would work >for any data that can be addressed. > >I expect that that the BOF will be centered around scoping the working >group, but I think we should (and approval of the BOF depends on) >getting some initial discussion around the scope. So... here it goes: > >I think the obvious thing is that it needs to be able to have >the basic >functionality presented by FTS, RFT, and SRM-copy, however >the devil is >in the details, so I will break this up into "blocks of >functionality": > >Lets start with naming. What will this service accept as valid names >for entities that it will move? URLs? EPRs? Will logical >file names be >accepted or should they be translated outside this service? > >Related to the naming is what type of data will this service move? >Files? video streams? the output of simulations? the output >of database >queries? Can we make this a service that any service that >wants to move >data can simply invoke it? Note that I am differentiating data from >messages. You would not use this to send the result from a >service that >summed a bunch of numbers, that would simply be a SOAP >response... IMHO :-). > >Can we make a generic module that would allow this functionality to be >applied to any service that exposes the byte-io interface? Does that >affect the interface or is it just an implementation issue? > >Can we make this service transport mechanism agnostic? both >application >transport (GridFTP vs HTTP vs ...) as well as network >transport (TCP vs >UDP vs UDT vs ...). My concern here is that I am not sure >SOAP has the >functionality we need. To do this, I wonder if we need the equivalent >of a union in C, so that the parameters specified are based on the >transport(s) chosen. For instance, if you use TCP you need >to specify a >buffer size, but not for UDP. GridFTP specifies streams and data >channel authentication, but HTTP does not. > >What about security / authorization. This is a broad category and we >should push as much as possible outside of scope via callouts >and Policy >Enforcement Points (PEPs), but what about delivery guarantees >such as AT >MOST ONCE, AT LEAST ONCE, EXACTLY ONCE, non-repudiation, etc.? I know >Dieter has a set of use cases that require some of this type delivery >guarantee functionality. > >A potentially contentious issue is whether or not these services will >use WSRF and notifications to expose (push from the service) >or methods >to query the state (pull from the service). Hopefully, we can find a >way to make each optional. > >If we start making many optional parts to the interface, it will make >what is exposed as service metadata for brokering will become more >important. I would propose that we should make at a minimum a >recommendation for what facts about the service should be exposed. > >All of the existing services accept "bulk" inputs, i.e., move >these 100 >files. This can be a problem when the requests become very >large due to >de-serialization. Should we provide a "chunking" interface so that >requests can be of unlimited size? > >Please feel free to make comments on the above and more importantly >suggest other important issues we need to address. > >btw, once we have a mail list of our own we will quit >spamming the other >lists :-). > >Bill >-- >William E. Allcock >Argonne National Laboratory >Bldg 221, Office C-115A >9700 South Cass Ave >Argonne, IL 60439-4844 >Office Phone: +1-630-252-7573 >Office Fax: +1-630-252-1997 >Cell Phone: +1-630-854-2842 > > > >

1 0

RE: [ogsa-d-wg] Draft Charter for Data Movement Interface Standardization WG
by Malcolm Atkinson 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Hi Bill I agree that such a standard interface is needed. When you look at files I presume you consider files where ever they are, secondary or tertiary storage at least. When you say any dataa, then there is the possibility of trivial or large amounts of data between RAM, as well as data from files and databases with an enormous set of possibilities of the way it may be selected and identified. Eventually it gets close to Byte-IO, Streams (BoF) and InfoD etc. So I'm agreeing with you that if yu go beyond files then scope control is difficult. Would it be better to do the standardisation of file movement first and look at other forms of adta movement later? Malcolm >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org >[mailto:owner-ogsa-d-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of William E. Allcock >Sent: 14 September 2005 17:04 >To: ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org; gsm-wg(a)ggf.org; byte-io-wg(a)ggf.org; >Peter Kunszt; James Casey; Ravi Madduri >Subject: [ogsa-d-wg] Draft Charter for Data Movement >Interface Standardization WG > >Sorry for the re-send, I typoed the byte-io mail list. > >All, > >Sorry for the SPAM, but I sent this to the "likely suspects" who might >be interested. I have a proposed BOF (waiting for AD approval) to >discuss standardizing an interface for invoking data movement. There >are several of them out there already. CERN has the File Transfer >System (FTS), the gsm-wg has SRM copy, Globus has the Reliable File >Transfer (RFT) service, etc.. I don't think there will be >any argument >that there is a need for such standardization, the hard part will be >scoping the extent of what we will work on. For instance, all the >examples above are file based, but ideally, this interface would work >for any data that can be addressed. > >I expect that that the BOF will be centered around scoping the working >group, but I think we should (and approval of the BOF depends on) >getting some initial discussion around the scope. So... here it goes: > >I think the obvious thing is that it needs to be able to have >the basic >functionality presented by FTS, RFT, and SRM-copy, however >the devil is >in the details, so I will break this up into "blocks of >functionality": > >Lets start with naming. What will this service accept as valid names >for entities that it will move? URLs? EPRs? Will logical >file names be >accepted or should they be translated outside this service? > >Related to the naming is what type of data will this service move? >Files? video streams? the output of simulations? the output >of database >queries? Can we make this a service that any service that >wants to move >data can simply invoke it? Note that I am differentiating data from >messages. You would not use this to send the result from a >service that >summed a bunch of numbers, that would simply be a SOAP >response... IMHO :-). > >Can we make a generic module that would allow this functionality to be >applied to any service that exposes the byte-io interface? Does that >affect the interface or is it just an implementation issue? > >Can we make this service transport mechanism agnostic? both >application >transport (GridFTP vs HTTP vs ...) as well as network >transport (TCP vs >UDP vs UDT vs ...). My concern here is that I am not sure >SOAP has the >functionality we need. To do this, I wonder if we need the equivalent >of a union in C, so that the parameters specified are based on the >transport(s) chosen. For instance, if you use TCP you need >to specify a >buffer size, but not for UDP. GridFTP specifies streams and data >channel authentication, but HTTP does not. > >What about security / authorization. This is a broad category and we >should push as much as possible outside of scope via callouts >and Policy >Enforcement Points (PEPs), but what about delivery guarantees >such as AT >MOST ONCE, AT LEAST ONCE, EXACTLY ONCE, non-repudiation, etc.? I know >Dieter has a set of use cases that require some of this type delivery >guarantee functionality. > >A potentially contentious issue is whether or not these services will >use WSRF and notifications to expose (push from the service) >or methods >to query the state (pull from the service). Hopefully, we can find a >way to make each optional. > >If we start making many optional parts to the interface, it will make >what is exposed as service metadata for brokering will become more >important. I would propose that we should make at a minimum a >recommendation for what facts about the service should be exposed. > >All of the existing services accept "bulk" inputs, i.e., move >these 100 >files. This can be a problem when the requests become very >large due to >de-serialization. Should we provide a "chunking" interface so that >requests can be of unlimited size? > >Please feel free to make comments on the above and more importantly >suggest other important issues we need to address. > >btw, once we have a mail list of our own we will quit >spamming the other >lists :-). > >Bill >-- >William E. Allcock >Argonne National Laboratory >Bldg 221, Office C-115A >9700 South Cass Ave >Argonne, IL 60439-4844 >Office Phone: +1-630-252-7573 >Office Fax: +1-630-252-1997 >Cell Phone: +1-630-854-2842 > > > >

1 0

Draft Charter for Data Movement Interface Standardization WG
by William E. Allcock 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Sorry for the re-send, I typoed the byte-io mail list. All, Sorry for the SPAM, but I sent this to the "likely suspects" who might be interested. I have a proposed BOF (waiting for AD approval) to discuss standardizing an interface for invoking data movement. There are several of them out there already. CERN has the File Transfer System (FTS), the gsm-wg has SRM copy, Globus has the Reliable File Transfer (RFT) service, etc.. I don't think there will be any argument that there is a need for such standardization, the hard part will be scoping the extent of what we will work on. For instance, all the examples above are file based, but ideally, this interface would work for any data that can be addressed. I expect that that the BOF will be centered around scoping the working group, but I think we should (and approval of the BOF depends on) getting some initial discussion around the scope. So... here it goes: I think the obvious thing is that it needs to be able to have the basic functionality presented by FTS, RFT, and SRM-copy, however the devil is in the details, so I will break this up into "blocks of functionality": Lets start with naming. What will this service accept as valid names for entities that it will move? URLs? EPRs? Will logical file names be accepted or should they be translated outside this service? Related to the naming is what type of data will this service move? Files? video streams? the output of simulations? the output of database queries? Can we make this a service that any service that wants to move data can simply invoke it? Note that I am differentiating data from messages. You would not use this to send the result from a service that summed a bunch of numbers, that would simply be a SOAP response... IMHO :-). Can we make a generic module that would allow this functionality to be applied to any service that exposes the byte-io interface? Does that affect the interface or is it just an implementation issue? Can we make this service transport mechanism agnostic? both application transport (GridFTP vs HTTP vs ...) as well as network transport (TCP vs UDP vs UDT vs ...). My concern here is that I am not sure SOAP has the functionality we need. To do this, I wonder if we need the equivalent of a union in C, so that the parameters specified are based on the transport(s) chosen. For instance, if you use TCP you need to specify a buffer size, but not for UDP. GridFTP specifies streams and data channel authentication, but HTTP does not. What about security / authorization. This is a broad category and we should push as much as possible outside of scope via callouts and Policy Enforcement Points (PEPs), but what about delivery guarantees such as AT MOST ONCE, AT LEAST ONCE, EXACTLY ONCE, non-repudiation, etc.? I know Dieter has a set of use cases that require some of this type delivery guarantee functionality. A potentially contentious issue is whether or not these services will use WSRF and notifications to expose (push from the service) or methods to query the state (pull from the service). Hopefully, we can find a way to make each optional. If we start making many optional parts to the interface, it will make what is exposed as service metadata for brokering will become more important. I would propose that we should make at a minimum a recommendation for what facts about the service should be exposed. All of the existing services accept "bulk" inputs, i.e., move these 100 files. This can be a problem when the requests become very large due to de-serialization. Should we provide a "chunking" interface so that requests can be of unlimited size? Please feel free to make comments on the above and more importantly suggest other important issues we need to address. btw, once we have a mail list of our own we will quit spamming the other lists :-). Bill -- William E. Allcock Argonne National Laboratory Bldg 221, Office C-115A 9700 South Cass Ave Argonne, IL 60439-4844 Office Phone: +1-630-252-7573 Office Fax: +1-630-252-1997 Cell Phone: +1-630-854-2842

1 0

Draft Charter for Data Movement Interface Standardization WG
by William E. Allcock 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

All, Sorry for the SPAM, but I sent this to the "likely suspects" who might be interested. I have a proposed BOF (waiting for AD approval) to discuss standardizing an interface for invoking data movement. There are several of them out there already. CERN has the File Transfer System (FTS), the gsm-wg has SRM copy, Globus has the Reliable File Transfer (RFT) service, etc.. I don't think there will be any argument that there is a need for such standardization, the hard part will be scoping the extent of what we will work on. For instance, all the examples above are file based, but ideally, this interface would work for any data that can be addressed. I expect that that the BOF will be centered around scoping the working group, but I think we should (and approval of the BOF depends on) getting some initial discussion around the scope. So... here it goes: I think the obvious thing is that it needs to be able to have the basic functionality presented by FTS, RFT, and SRM-copy, however the devil is in the details, so I will break this up into "blocks of functionality": Lets start with naming. What will this service accept as valid names for entities that it will move? URLs? EPRs? Will logical file names be accepted or should they be translated outside this service? Related to the naming is what type of data will this service move? Files? video streams? the output of simulations? the output of database queries? Can we make this a service that any service that wants to move data can simply invoke it? Note that I am differentiating data from messages. You would not use this to send the result from a service that summed a bunch of numbers, that would simply be a SOAP response... IMHO :-). Can we make a generic module that would allow this functionality to be applied to any service that exposes the byte-io interface? Does that affect the interface or is it just an implementation issue? Can we make this service transport mechanism agnostic? both application transport (GridFTP vs HTTP vs ...) as well as network transport (TCP vs UDP vs UDT vs ...). My concern here is that I am not sure SOAP has the functionality we need. To do this, I wonder if we need the equivalent of a union in C, so that the parameters specified are based on the transport(s) chosen. For instance, if you use TCP you need to specify a buffer size, but not for UDP. GridFTP specifies streams and data channel authentication, but HTTP does not. What about security / authorization. This is a broad category and we should push as much as possible outside of scope via callouts and Policy Enforcement Points (PEPs), but what about delivery guarantees such as AT MOST ONCE, AT LEAST ONCE, EXACTLY ONCE, non-repudiation, etc.? I know Dieter has a set of use cases that require some of this type delivery guarantee functionality. A potentially contentious issue is whether or not these services will use WSRF and notifications to expose (push from the service) or methods to query the state (pull from the service). Hopefully, we can find a way to make each optional. If we start making many optional parts to the interface, it will make what is exposed as service metadata for brokering will become more important. I would propose that we should make at a minimum a recommendation for what facts about the service should be exposed. All of the existing services accept "bulk" inputs, i.e., move these 100 files. This can be a problem when the requests become very large due to de-serialization. Should we provide a "chunking" interface so that requests can be of unlimited size? Please feel free to make comments on the above and more importantly suggest other important issues we need to address. btw, once we have a mail list of our own we will quit spamming the other lists :-). Bill -- William E. Allcock Argonne National Laboratory Bldg 221, Office C-115A 9700 South Cass Ave Argonne, IL 60439-4844 Office Phone: +1-630-252-7573 Office Fax: +1-630-252-1997 Cell Phone: +1-630-854-2842

1 0

Strawman w/ Security - A Work in Progress
by Allen Luniewski 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

I have been working on adding security words to the architecture document. I am part way through that process but it is far from done. My goal is to have words in there that I am happy with and which address, or at least raise, as many security related issues as can be identified.. At that point it will be published as a stake in the ground for review, revision and correction. Since Dave has placed this update on tomorrow's agenda, I wanted to send out what I had. It is not a strawman - it is definitely a work in progress. So, do not have overly high expectations at this point. IN any event, your comments, suggestions, text to be added, etc. will be most appreciated! Allen

1 0

Telcon Agenda, 14th Sep: Streams & GGF
by Dave Berry 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

The next teleconference of the OGSA Data Architecture working group will be held on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 at the usual time of 8:00am PDT / 11:00am EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST. As a reminder, here is the teleconference information: UK Dial In: 0845 245 0224 US Dial In: 1 866 838 0046 International Dial In: +44 1452 542309 PIN: 369 786 Agenda for the September 14th teleconference: 1) Early discussion (5 minutes) Note taker assignment Roll call Minutes approval from September 7th teleconference (http://tinyurl.com/ccrzy) Agenda bashing 2) Action report (10 minutes) - Dave to contact more people about Personal Data services - Dave to request that Bill's BOF at GGF15 precedes our main session - Dave/Allen to mail section authors re review telcons - Dave to invite people to streams BOF/planning - Dave to check access to phones from UK All-Hands Meeting. - Everyone to talk with your contacts to get more participation in this WG - Allen to write an overview section on security - Section authors to add security notes to their sections - Mario to ask an OGSA-DAI staff member to write something on the security issues around OGSA-DAI - Dave to revamp section 3 of the architecture document - Allen/Dave to contact David Martin & Hiro Kishimoto to get reviewers & expert participation (after internal reviews). 3) Planning the Data Streams BOF (25 minutes) Assuming our session request is granted, how shall we organise this session? - Presentations? - Preparation of a set of questions to address? - More people to invite? 4) Security Discussion (15 minutes) Issues arising from the write-up 5) Wrap up (3 minutes) AOB - 21st: Reviews - 28th: Planning transfer session for GGF (Allen can't make it) Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Draft scenarios document on GridForge
by Dave Berry 07 Sep '05

07 Sep '05

All, I have put Stephen's latest version of the draft scenarios version on GridForge - see http://tinyurl.com/datzx. Best wishes, Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Agenda - Teleconference, 7 September 2005
by Allen Luniewski 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

The next teleconference of the OGSA Data Architecture working group will be held on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 at the usual time of 8:00am PDT / 11:00am EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST. As a reminder, here is the teleconference information: UK Dial In: 0845 245 0224 US Dial In: 1 866 838 0046 International Dial In: +44 1452 542309 PIN: 369 786 Agenda for the September 7 teleconference: 1) Early discussion (2 minutes) Note taker assignment Roll call Minutes approval ( https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewProperties.php?group_id=150&categor…) (from August 31 teleconference) Agenda bashing 2) Action report (10 minutes) - Allen to mail list re possible F2F meeting at GGF15 - Dave to contact people about Personal Data services - Dave/Allen to mail David Martin and Joel about running a streams BOF at GGF15 - Dave/Allen to mail Bill/Malcolm to confirm they are available for next week's telcon - Dave to consult OGSA WG security design team re GGF15 session - Dave to submit GGF15 session requests - Allen to contact DFDL WG regarding a discussion on transformations - Everyone to talk with your contacts to get more participation in this WG - Allen to write an overview section on security - Section authors to add security notes to their sections - Dave/Allen to mail section authors re review telcons - Mario to ask an OGSA-DAI staff member to write something on the security issues around OGSA-DAI - Dave to revamp section 3 of the architecture document - Allen to investigate possibility of writing an article, or letter to the editor, to Grid Today saying that we are working on these issues. We should also invite participation in our efforts. - Allen/Dave to contact David Martin & Hiro Kishimoto to get reviewers & expert participation (after internal reviews). 3) GGF-15 Session Summary & Assignment of Actions (Dave Berry) (10 minutes) 4) Data Transfer Discussion (35 minutes) 5) Wrap up (3 minutes) AOB Allen

1 0