DMI Telcon - 12/12/07 ===================== Attendees: Mario Antonioletti, EPCC Steven Newhouse, Microsoft Michel Drescher, Fujitsu Ravi Madduri, ANL Agenda: 1. IPR Notice 2. Agenda Bashing 3. Ravi's modified proposal 4. Planning 5. AOB +--- 1. IPR Notice 2. Agenda Bashing Michel proposed an extra agenda item to discuss the updating of the spec. 3. Ravi's Proposals Ravi circulated his Retries Proposal - the aggregation one still needs to be done. Removed the status state transition - state transition now takes place when it Fails. After a number of retries it goes into a failed state. InstanceAttributes now has a Retries attribute. Michel had some comments: Want MaxAttempts to be optional. If it is not specified it is one. Need to place in a question mark on the MaxAttempts element in the TransferRequirements complex element. Need to semantically link EndNoLaterThan with MaxAttemts - compliance for both values should go in the text. EndNoLaterThan takes precedence. The alignment of MaxAttempts and Retries - Ravi's proposal states that if the values are equal then the transfer has to fail - mixing semantics of MaxAttempts and Retries - which is a bit confusing.. The Retries is how many failed attempts have been had - Steven suggested renaming Retries to Attempt First time it is set to 1. When it fails and it tries again if it's equal to MaxAttempts then it fails unless the EndNoLaterThan is violated first. Michel suggests using postiveIntegers for the data type for Attempt and MaxAttempts. Ravi going to work on the aggregation proposal and send out to the list. 3b. Updating the spec. For version 43 of the spec Michel wanted to make some updates - have 6 & 7 comments, some changes and delete some things from the spec. Section 3.3 - Steven added text - would like to accept it. Fine. Two comments on p10 from Michel - do not want to wait for a wide specification of URIs for protocols from OGSA. Steven suggested taking the comment out of the document but adding as a tracker for using a standard for URI protocol identifiers from OGSA. Removed the undo strategy comment from the same page. Removed Mario's comment on p13. The sourceMode and sinkMode are removed - Mario's comment goes with it. Section 4.2.1.3 - Ravi stated "Can these include like parallelStreams, TCP Buffer size etc ?" Michel would like it removed. Ravi asks for an extensibility point. Steven has no objection but they are protocol dependent parameters and there had been a concern about having it in a protocol neutral part. Michel fine about having an extensibility and if an implementation does not understand it it can throw an Notsatisfiable fault. Consensus: fine to add an extensibility element. Michel has added one. Remove Ravi's comment. Accept typo fixes on p16 and section 5 that Ravi spotted. Section 5.1.2 - Michel's DTI failure text - accepted. Ravi's comment about having an enumeration of strings - the value of the status. Discussion as to whether we can borrow from the state models proposed in SAGA and/or BES for jobs. Steven had taken action from the meeting in Seattle to look at the SAGA and BES models but it has not been done. May have the same states but used in different models they may have different semantics for each model. Ravi thought that BES used to have 3 overlapping states - not sure if it makes sense to re-use it but would have to check. Steven agrees - people might assume that the states mean the same thing across all specs. Michel - concepts and semantics are similar but would feel uneasy to align - might be an interesting topic for OGSA discussion. Would prefer to start with our own DMI state and re-examine the state alignment at some later point. Not clear if it makes sense to align all of this. We can put a tracker for the state model for a future version of the spec to try and harmonise future state models. For now we make our own enumeration of strings - not URIs. Remove Mario's comment from p28. 4. Planning Michel will wrangle the XML Schema and WSDL - draw out a common bit and then come up with WS-I and WSRF renderings of these. The WSRF rendering must include the WS-I rendering because of the base faults - will follow the ByteIO model for doing this. Will put up a new version of the doc and then Ravi can add to the spec. Retries could go into the spec directly. Aggregation can go to the list and then we can have a look at it. If there are no objections then it can go into the spec too. Complete the spec and review the spec in the new year. Have a telcon if there is a need otherwise agrees Ravi's changes on the list. 5. AOB None. A Merry Xmas and a happy new year to all. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Mario Antonioletti:EPCC,JCMB,The King's Buildings,Edinburgh EH9 3JZ. | |Tel:0131 650 5141|mario@epcc.ed.ac.uk|http://www.epcc.ed.ac.uk/~mario/ | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+