- ogsa-d-wg - lists.ogf.org

Survey for OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF15
by Hiro Kishimoto 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting again. As you already know, OGSA-WG and fellow WGs are planning to have F2F meeting in Boston, back-to-back with GGF15. The meeting will be held on Thursday (9am-6pm) and Friday (8am-3:30pm) at IBM office in Boston (it is 2.2 miles away from GGF15 venue instead of walking distance). Please keep it in mind that this F2F is workshop style technical discussion. If you want to learn OGSA activities in general, "OGSA Status and direction presentation session" on Oct. 3 (Mon) 11am-12:30pm at Berkely/Clarendon room is the one you should join. In order to obtain admission to the F2F venue, please let us know your plan for attendance by answering the following on-line survey. Deadline is EoB Friday (Sept. 23). http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224MNGGSZFW Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RE: [ogsa-d-wg] OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF14
by Dave Berry 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Allen and I had an e-mail conversation about a possible data session. We think it would make good sense to make use of this opportunity. We suggest a focus on naming and data resources - e.g. do data resources bring extra requirements on naming?; does OGSA specify a coherent framework for naming resources that we can use in OGSA Data?. We're happy to iterate on this suggestion. We invite interested people to get in touch - we are aware that some of these issues have been discussed before in other forums and would welcome contributions. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-d-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: 15 September 2005 11:52 To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-bes-wg(a)ggf.org; byteio-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-rss-wg(a)ggf.org; cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org; OGSA-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-authz(a)ggf.org; acs-wg(a)ggf.org; jsdl-wg(a)gridforum.org; graap-wg(a)gridforum.org Subject: [ogsa-d-wg] OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF14 Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting. OGSA-WG is planning to have F2F meeting in Boston, back-to-back with GGF14. The meeting will be held on Thursday (9am-6pm) and Friday (8am-3pm) at IBM office in Boston, walking distance from GGF15 venue. The following is tentative agenda items we've listed up at Today's OGSA-WG call. - EMS architecture (CDDLM, ACS, GRAAP, RSS, JSDL, BES) - OGSA-naming session - Resource Management (info/data model) - OGSA-BES session - OGSA-data session (?) If you want to have another session or any specific day/time requirements on any of these sessions, please let me know. I am sorry for this late notice. I am clumsy to organize this F2F meeting since it is our first back-to-back one. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Minutes + no telcon next week
by Dave Berry 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

All, We will not have an OGSA-D telcon next week. The next telcon will be on the 28th. The minutes for this week's telcon are on GridForge, at http://tinyurl.com/d38sz. Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

Re: [ogsa-d-wg] OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF14
by Allen Luniewski 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

Abdeslem's mail bounced. Allen From: "Djaoui, A (Abdeslem)" <A.Djaoui(a)rl.ac.uk> To: "Hiro Kishimoto" <hiro.kishimoto(a)jp.fujitsu.com>, <ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org>, <ogsa-bes-wg(a)ggf.org>, <byteio-wg(a)ggf.org>, <ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org>, <ogsa-rss-wg(a)ggf.org>, <cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org>, <OGSA-naming-wg(a)ggf.org>, <ogsa-authz(a)ggf.org>, <acs-wg(a)ggf.org>, <jsdl-wg(a)gridforum.org>, <graap-wg(a)gridforum.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Sep 2005 11:39:35.0310 (UTC) FILETIME=[258842E0:01C5B9EA] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at mailbouncer.mcs.anl.gov Hiro Unfortunately I have already booked my flight etc... and I can only make = Thursday. Would it be possible to have Resource Management (info/data = model) on the Thursday? Abdeslem ////////////// -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:52 AM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-bes-wg(a)ggf.org; byteio-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-rss-wg(a)ggf.org; cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org; OGSA-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-authz(a)ggf.org; acs-wg(a)ggf.org; jsdl-wg(a)gridforum.org; graap-wg(a)gridforum.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF14 Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting. OGSA-WG is planning to have F2F meeting in Boston, back-to-back with GGF14. The meeting will be held on Thursday (9am-6pm) and Friday (8am-3pm) at IBM office in Boston, walking distance from GGF15 venue. The following is tentative agenda items we've listed up at Today's OGSA-WG call. - EMS architecture (CDDLM, ACS, GRAAP, RSS, JSDL, BES) - OGSA-naming session - Resource Management (info/data model) - OGSA-BES session - OGSA-data session (?) If you want to have another session or any specific day/time requirements on any of these sessions, please let me know. I am sorry for this late notice. I am clumsy to organize this F2F meeting since it is our first back-to-back one. Thanks, --=20 Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF14
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting. OGSA-WG is planning to have F2F meeting in Boston, back-to-back with GGF14. The meeting will be held on Thursday (9am-6pm) and Friday (8am-3pm) at IBM office in Boston, walking distance from GGF15 venue. The following is tentative agenda items we've listed up at Today's OGSA-WG call. - EMS architecture (CDDLM, ACS, GRAAP, RSS, JSDL, BES) - OGSA-naming session - Resource Management (info/data model) - OGSA-BES session - OGSA-data session (?) If you want to have another session or any specific day/time requirements on any of these sessions, please let me know. I am sorry for this late notice. I am clumsy to organize this F2F meeting since it is our first back-to-back one. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

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, yet again. 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

2 1

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