All,

                Here is the link to the compliance tester. To correct what Steven wrote in the minutes below, the compliance tester can only handle username/password authentication. I will need to install people’s root certs so that the compliance tester (the client) can trust your service for the https connection (required by HPCP), but no X.509 mutual auth is supported right now. We have services which support both, so that may be the source of the confusion. So, the URL is:

https://opteron4.cs.virginia.edu:45885/FormServerTemplates/HPCBasicProfileComplianceTester.aspx

To use it, check the messages/errors that you want to test, fill in the information about the job you’d like to run, and click the “begin testing” button. The results will appear in the various output boxes at the bottom of the web page.

Let me know if you encounter problems with the site’s functioning, or if you don’t agree with the results it is giving you.

Thanks,

Glenn

From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Steven Newhouse
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 2:22 PM
To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org
Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Telecon Notes - Auguest 30th 2007

Present

Steve McGough

Steven Newhouse

Glenn Wasson

Vesso Novov

John Ehrig

Bill Nitzberg

Chris Smith

Blair Dillaway

Agenda

1. OGF IPR Notice

2. Agenda Bashing

a. Include a discussion about data staging

3. Update on collaboration tool & conformance checker (UVa)

a. UVa has deployed a sharepoint server which is hosting the conformance checker. Can select username/password or X.509 certificate security profiles. May need to provide your root certificate to Glenn for the X.509 profile to work.

b. Must (minimally) ensure that the contents of the wiki is uploaded to GridForge after SC07.

c. Ensure there is recognition on the server that this is an OGF based activity.

d. Glenn to circulate URL.

e. Glenn to provide links to published specifications on GridForge on the wiki

4. Report on status (All)

a. UVa (Glenn): Will be able to support endpoints for both security mechanisms. Compliant with final specification. May deploy an endpoint into PBS.

b. GridSAM (Steve & Vesso): Involved in OGSA Base Profile and HPC Basic Profile interop activities. Need to update implementation to current specifications. Will be able to support both security profiles.

c. Microsoft (Steven): Implementation has been updated. Need to host these on public facing servers. Hopefully this week. Will email details when available. Initially username/password profile. Later X.509.

d. PBS (Bill): Just working on a client. Will try to consume others endpoints.  

e. LSF (Chris): Implementation needs to be updated to final specifications. Hopefully in the next two weeks. Will be able to support both authentication mechanisms.

5. Data Staging Discussion (Steven)

a. Before any in depth discussion of the extension to the profile… useful to have a scoping discussion.

b. Resolve that this work will:

1. NOT address any data staging that takes place within the cluster, i.e. moving files from the cluster filestore to a local compute node before job execution

2. Any data transfer activity will be initiated server side. This may be on the head node, the machine hosting the web service or somewhere else.

3. Depending on the protocol used there may be a dependency with Activity Credential work.

4. Only dealing with files NOT structured data

c. Proposal to rename the extension to the ‘File Staging’ extension.

d. Need to define some testing scenarios that stage through anonymous & authenticated protocols that are independent & dependent on the proposed activity credential work.

6. Contributions to the experiences document

a. Glenn to move current outline (http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-hpcp-wg/2007-August/000389.html) on to the sharepoint server so that it can hold the master copy and be used to co-ordinate edits.

b. Issue with the current gSOAP implementation used by LSF and the WCF relating to a timestamp in the WS-Security headers. The gSOAP implementation does not provide one. If WCF sends one out it expects one back. By WCF not sending one out there is no problem not getting a timestamp back and the two systems interop.

7. Any Other Business

a. Moving the time of the telecon. Proposal to start 90 minutes later (9.30 Pacific) in two weeks time.