I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running? Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up? I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging? After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory? Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error: Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhost" expired]] Peter
Also, could the gLite WMProxy CA certificate be published as just a tarball or separate cert links instead of an RPM. Peter Peter G. Lane wrote:
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhost" expired]]
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 16:31, Peter G. Lane wrote:
Also, could the gLite WMProxy CA certificate be published as just a tarball or separate cert links instead of an RPM.
Done: please tell me whether you find any problem cheers, Alessandro
Peter
Peter G. Lane wrote:
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhost" expired]]
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
______________________________________________________________________ -- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
Alessandro, Thanks for the cert tarball. I did get an error: 2006-11-06 09:12:48,292 DEBUG client.GlobusRun [main,processJob:1239] Exception while submitting the job request: AxisFault faultCode: {http://xml.apache.org/axis/}HTTP faultSubcode: faultString: (411)Length Required faultActor: faultNode: faultDetail: {}:return code: 411 <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <html><head> <title>411 Length Required</title> </head><body> <h1>Length Required</h1> <p>A request of the requested method POST requires a valid Content-length.<br /> </p> </body></html> . . . Peter Alessandro Maraschini wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 16:31, Peter G. Lane wrote:
Also, could the gLite WMProxy CA certificate be published as just a tarball or separate cert links instead of an RPM.
Done: please tell me whether you find any problem cheers, Alessandro
Peter
Peter G. Lane wrote:
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhost" expired]]
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
______________________________________________________________________ -- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL). -Mark -- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos t" expired]]
Peter
This is what Chris said: I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now.... By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was the case, then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field. Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well? At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing. Peter Mark Morgan wrote:
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL).
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos t" expired]]
Peter
Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before revolved around whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the WIKI pages for degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value (i.e., where metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as allowed by spec.). Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to a play URL, people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs. However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly expressed a desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client side, but has since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the GenesisII endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out of spec., or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use WS-Addressing for my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the headers.)? -Mark -- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
This is what Chris said:
I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....
By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was the case, then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field.
Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well?
At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing.
Peter
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL).
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by
Mark Morgan wrote: them will
hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos t" expired]]
Peter
I'm a little frustrated because I thought I made it clear when I was pushing for EPRs as a requirement that we needed clients to support the WS-Adressing headers. But since it sounded as though people didn't want to bother with this, I capitulated and made my service use a singleton resource that didn't need an EPR, limiting it's capabilities and wasting time. So now I find that people have agreed off list to support such a scenario and I'm left with not being interoperable. What I'm saying is that I don't have an objection to this in principle, but it would have been nice if someone would have clarified this earlier on the list when I was arguing the that my service would also need to add a ReferenceParameters element. I saw no discussion of people implementing the soap headers in clients so that they could interop with such services. Peter Mark Morgan wrote:
Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before revolved around whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the WIKI pages for degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value (i.e., where metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as allowed by spec.). Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to a play URL, people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs. However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly expressed a desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client side, but has since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the GenesisII endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out of spec., or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use WS-Addressing for my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the headers.)?
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
This is what Chris said:
I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....
By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was the case, then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field.
Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well?
At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing.
Peter
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL). -Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by
Mark Morgan wrote: them will
hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos t" expired]]
Peter
I'm very sorry that you feel this way Peter and that you felt like you were forced to handicap your service, but as I have been trying to say, people have NOT been colluding behind your back. I am pretty sure that you misunderstood the conversation that you refer to and that at no time did anyone ever say that you couldn't use WS-Addressing EPRs. My recollection of that entire conversation was that it revolved primarily around whether or not people were required to use WS-Addressing EndpointReferenceTypes, not whether or not they were allowed to (modulo Chris Smith's one comment on how he would rather not implement WS-Addressing in his client). Looking back over the email history of that conversation, it started with an email from you on 13 October 2006 which said, "Endpoints should be posted as EPRs, not URLs." , to which Glenn Wasson responded, "Not everyone needs an EPR to contact the service."
From these two comments it seems clear to me that this conversation is about whether or not people were required to post WS-Addressing EPRs to the WIKI, not about whether or not they were allowed to implement and use WS-Addressing for their endpoints.
Further, the Chris Smith email you refer to contains the following text, " Instead of: https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090 You want: <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <wsa:Address>https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090</wsa:Address> </wsa:EndpointReference> " Again, notice that this is about representation on the wiki, not about WS-Addressing as an allowed protocol. This message indicates the means by which the two representations (for degenerate EPRs) can be transformed back and forth. In that email, he does make the statement you refer to, "I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....", but this is about his client, not the interop fest as a whole.
From their the discussion turned largely into one of transport binding terminology, but the final word on the email list was a mail from you indicating that you would implement your service as a singleton that didn't require EPRs. Now that I read that, I can see how this could have happened. At that point, if someone was paying really close attention, they would have realized that you had just agreed to a course of action that was unneccessarily drastic. However, I think most people left it at that because your email seemed to declare that you had come to a decision internally and as such didn't need to discuss the issue further.
Again, I am truly sorry that you feel like you wasted your time turning your service into a singleton, but please realize that while this incident is unfortunate, it is not necessarily the case that anything underhanded or clandestine occurred. I believe that it was simple miscommunication that lead to this unfortunate accident. -- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I'm a little frustrated because I thought I made it clear when I was pushing for EPRs as a requirement that we needed clients to support the WS-Adressing headers. But since it sounded as though people didn't want to bother with this, I capitulated and made my service use a singleton resource that didn't need an EPR, limiting it's capabilities and wasting time. So now I find that people have agreed off list to support such a scenario and I'm left with not being interoperable.
What I'm saying is that I don't have an objection to this in principle, but it would have been nice if someone would have clarified this earlier on the list when I was arguing the that my service would also need to add a ReferenceParameters element. I saw no discussion of people implementing the soap headers in clients so that they could interop with such services.
Peter
Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before revolved around whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the WIKI pages for degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value (i.e., where metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as allowed by spec.). Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to a play URL, people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs. However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly expressed a desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client side, but has since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the GenesisII endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out of spec., or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use WS-Addressing for my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the headers.)?
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
This is what Chris said:
I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....
By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was
Mark Morgan wrote: the case,
then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field.
Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well?
At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing.
Peter
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL). -Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by
Mark Morgan wrote: them will
hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos t" expired]]
Peter
I don't think anybody colluded behind my back, don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to say that we should be more open about our discussion of what people are doing to achieve interop. For example, if a discussion between you and Chris had been held on the list about him implementing the headers in his client so that he could talk to your service, I would have picked up on this sooner and perhaps been saved from last-minute problems. So while I think it's likely largely a miscommunication, more open communication is perhaps part of it too. I don't mean every little detail should have been discussed (Glenn and I are discussing a problem off list as we write), but summaries of problems and how it was overcome would be appropriate in case others run into the same problems. But perhaps everybody just implemented the soap headers without talking to anyone else, so I'll admit there's no guarantee this would have been caught sooner. I'm also panicking since I've not been able to use anybody's service so far. So I apologize if I came off as a bit flippant. Peter Mark Morgan wrote:
I'm very sorry that you feel this way Peter and that you felt like you were forced to handicap your service, but as I have been trying to say, people have NOT been colluding behind your back. I am pretty sure that you misunderstood the conversation that you refer to and that at no time did anyone ever say that you couldn't use WS-Addressing EPRs. My recollection of that entire conversation was that it revolved primarily around whether or not people were required to use WS-Addressing EndpointReferenceTypes, not whether or not they were allowed to (modulo Chris Smith's one comment on how he would rather not implement WS-Addressing in his client).
Looking back over the email history of that conversation, it started with an email from you on 13 October 2006 which said, "Endpoints should be posted as EPRs, not URLs." , to which Glenn Wasson responded, "Not everyone needs an EPR to contact the service."
From these two comments it seems clear to me that this conversation is about whether or not people were required to post WS-Addressing EPRs to the WIKI, not about whether or not they were allowed to implement and use WS-Addressing for their endpoints.
Further, the Chris Smith email you refer to contains the following text, " Instead of:
https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090
You want:
<wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <wsa:Address>https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090</wsa:Address> </wsa:EndpointReference> "
Again, notice that this is about representation on the wiki, not about WS-Addressing as an allowed protocol. This message indicates the means by which the two representations (for degenerate EPRs) can be transformed back and forth. In that email, he does make the statement you refer to, "I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....", but this is about his client, not the interop fest as a whole.
From their the discussion turned largely into one of transport binding terminology, but the final word on the email list was a mail from you indicating that you would implement your service as a singleton that didn't require EPRs. Now that I read that, I can see how this could have happened. At that point, if someone was paying really close attention, they would have realized that you had just agreed to a course of action that was unneccessarily drastic. However, I think most people left it at that because your email seemed to declare that you had come to a decision internally and as such didn't need to discuss the issue further.
Again, I am truly sorry that you feel like you wasted your time turning your service into a singleton, but please realize that while this incident is unfortunate, it is not necessarily the case that anything underhanded or clandestine occurred. I believe that it was simple miscommunication that lead to this unfortunate accident.
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I'm a little frustrated because I thought I made it clear when I was pushing for EPRs as a requirement that we needed clients to support the WS-Adressing headers. But since it sounded as though people didn't want to bother with this, I capitulated and made my service use a singleton resource that didn't need an EPR, limiting it's capabilities and wasting time. So now I find that people have agreed off list to support such a scenario and I'm left with not being interoperable.
What I'm saying is that I don't have an objection to this in principle, but it would have been nice if someone would have clarified this earlier on the list when I was arguing the that my service would also need to add a ReferenceParameters element. I saw no discussion of people implementing the soap headers in clients so that they could interop with such services.
Peter
Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before revolved around whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the WIKI pages for degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value (i.e., where metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as allowed by spec.). Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to a play URL, people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs. However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly expressed a desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client side, but has since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the GenesisII endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out of spec., or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use WS-Addressing for my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the headers.)?
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
This is what Chris said:
I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....
By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was
Mark Morgan wrote: the case,
then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field.
Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well?
At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing.
Peter
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL). -Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by
Mark Morgan wrote: them will
hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos t" expired]]
Peter
It wasn't like we had a discussion and all of a sudden decided this or that. When I needed to interop with Mark's service, he required the WS-Addressing support in the client, so I could implement it and be interoperable, or give up interop with his endpoint. As it turned out, the WS-Addressing support I put in was done last after all other stuff. I'm sorry if you wasted some time on this, but you also haven't been very vocal about your status yourself. Rich, Glenn, Mark and I have worked through lots of issues, but a lot of them come out in point to point issues. -- Chris On 06/11/06 09:12, "Peter G. Lane" <lane@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
I don't think anybody colluded behind my back, don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to say that we should be more open about our discussion of what people are doing to achieve interop. For example, if a discussion between you and Chris had been held on the list about him implementing the headers in his client so that he could talk to your service, I would have picked up on this sooner and perhaps been saved from last-minute problems. So while I think it's likely largely a miscommunication, more open communication is perhaps part of it too.
I don't mean every little detail should have been discussed (Glenn and I are discussing a problem off list as we write), but summaries of problems and how it was overcome would be appropriate in case others run into the same problems. But perhaps everybody just implemented the soap headers without talking to anyone else, so I'll admit there's no guarantee this would have been caught sooner.
I'm also panicking since I've not been able to use anybody's service so far. So I apologize if I came off as a bit flippant.
Peter
Mark Morgan wrote:
I'm very sorry that you feel this way Peter and that you felt like you were forced to handicap your service, but as I have been trying to say, people have NOT been colluding behind your back. I am pretty sure that you misunderstood the conversation that you refer to and that at no time did anyone ever say that you couldn't use WS-Addressing EPRs. My recollection of that entire conversation was that it revolved primarily around whether or not people were required to use WS-Addressing EndpointReferenceTypes, not whether or not they were allowed to (modulo Chris Smith's one comment on how he would rather not implement WS-Addressing in his client).
Looking back over the email history of that conversation, it started with an email from you on 13 October 2006 which said, "Endpoints should be posted as EPRs, not URLs." , to which Glenn Wasson responded, "Not everyone needs an EPR to contact the service."
From these two comments it seems clear to me that this conversation is about whether or not people were required to post WS-Addressing EPRs to the WIKI, not about whether or not they were allowed to implement and use WS-Addressing for their endpoints.
Further, the Chris Smith email you refer to contains the following text, " Instead of:
https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090
You want:
<wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <wsa:Address>https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090</wsa:Address> </wsa:EndpointReference> "
Again, notice that this is about representation on the wiki, not about WS-Addressing as an allowed protocol. This message indicates the means by which the two representations (for degenerate EPRs) can be transformed back and forth. In that email, he does make the statement you refer to, "I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....", but this is about his client, not the interop fest as a whole.
From their the discussion turned largely into one of transport binding terminology, but the final word on the email list was a mail from you indicating that you would implement your service as a singleton that didn't require EPRs. Now that I read that, I can see how this could have happened. At that point, if someone was paying really close attention, they would have realized that you had just agreed to a course of action that was unneccessarily drastic. However, I think most people left it at that because your email seemed to declare that you had come to a decision internally and as such didn't need to discuss the issue further.
Again, I am truly sorry that you feel like you wasted your time turning your service into a singleton, but please realize that while this incident is unfortunate, it is not necessarily the case that anything underhanded or clandestine occurred. I believe that it was simple miscommunication that lead to this unfortunate accident.
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I'm a little frustrated because I thought I made it clear when I was pushing for EPRs as a requirement that we needed clients to support the WS-Adressing headers. But since it sounded as though people didn't want to bother with this, I capitulated and made my service use a singleton resource that didn't need an EPR, limiting it's capabilities and wasting time. So now I find that people have agreed off list to support such a scenario and I'm left with not being interoperable.
What I'm saying is that I don't have an objection to this in principle, but it would have been nice if someone would have clarified this earlier on the list when I was arguing the that my service would also need to add a ReferenceParameters element. I saw no discussion of people implementing the soap headers in clients so that they could interop with such services.
Peter
Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before revolved around whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the WIKI pages for degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value (i.e., where metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as allowed by spec.). Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to a play URL, people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs. However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly expressed a desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client side, but has since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the GenesisII endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out of spec., or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use WS-Addressing for my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the headers.)?
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
This is what Chris said:
I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....
By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was
Mark Morgan wrote: the case,
then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field.
Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well?
At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing.
Peter
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL). -Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
> -----Original Message----- > From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org > [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM > To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status > > I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working > locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by
Mark Morgan wrote: them will
> hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL > snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this > just mean that I have an FTP server running? > > Problems > -------- > I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations > using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message > is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services > still up? > > I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL > https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the > client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the > CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering > if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, > could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my > debugging? > > After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use > of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother > implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform > EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. > The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that > some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm > rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that > full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory? > > Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the > following error: > > Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected > [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate > "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos > t" expired]] > > Peter >
-- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
I'm just saying that I believe part of this activity should be to document our experiences so people can learn from them. I didn't have anything to post before I started this thread because I wasn't able to do any interop testing (i.e. no functioning client or service). Others have done testing, though, and I've seen no discussion of people's experiences. I already admitted that this wouldn't have necessarily prevented my dilemma and apologized for reacting in a manor that perhaps seemed harsh, but I do think it's a good idea. Peter Christopher Smith wrote:
It wasn't like we had a discussion and all of a sudden decided this or that. When I needed to interop with Mark's service, he required the WS-Addressing support in the client, so I could implement it and be interoperable, or give up interop with his endpoint. As it turned out, the WS-Addressing support I put in was done last after all other stuff.
I'm sorry if you wasted some time on this, but you also haven't been very vocal about your status yourself. Rich, Glenn, Mark and I have worked through lots of issues, but a lot of them come out in point to point issues.
-- Chris
On 06/11/06 09:12, "Peter G. Lane" <lane@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
I don't think anybody colluded behind my back, don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to say that we should be more open about our discussion of what people are doing to achieve interop. For example, if a discussion between you and Chris had been held on the list about him implementing the headers in his client so that he could talk to your service, I would have picked up on this sooner and perhaps been saved from last-minute problems. So while I think it's likely largely a miscommunication, more open communication is perhaps part of it too.
I don't mean every little detail should have been discussed (Glenn and I are discussing a problem off list as we write), but summaries of problems and how it was overcome would be appropriate in case others run into the same problems. But perhaps everybody just implemented the soap headers without talking to anyone else, so I'll admit there's no guarantee this would have been caught sooner.
I'm also panicking since I've not been able to use anybody's service so far. So I apologize if I came off as a bit flippant.
Peter
Mark Morgan wrote:
I'm very sorry that you feel this way Peter and that you felt like you were forced to handicap your service, but as I have been trying to say, people have NOT been colluding behind your back. I am pretty sure that you misunderstood the conversation that you refer to and that at no time did anyone ever say that you couldn't use WS-Addressing EPRs. My recollection of that entire conversation was that it revolved primarily around whether or not people were required to use WS-Addressing EndpointReferenceTypes, not whether or not they were allowed to (modulo Chris Smith's one comment on how he would rather not implement WS-Addressing in his client).
Looking back over the email history of that conversation, it started with an email from you on 13 October 2006 which said, "Endpoints should be posted as EPRs, not URLs." , to which Glenn Wasson responded, "Not everyone needs an EPR to contact the service."
From these two comments it seems clear to me that this conversation is about whether or not people were required to post WS-Addressing EPRs to the WIKI, not about whether or not they were allowed to implement and use WS-Addressing for their endpoints.
Further, the Chris Smith email you refer to contains the following text, " Instead of:
https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090
You want:
<wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <wsa:Address>https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090</wsa:Address> </wsa:EndpointReference> "
Again, notice that this is about representation on the wiki, not about WS-Addressing as an allowed protocol. This message indicates the means by which the two representations (for degenerate EPRs) can be transformed back and forth. In that email, he does make the statement you refer to, "I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....", but this is about his client, not the interop fest as a whole.
From their the discussion turned largely into one of transport binding terminology, but the final word on the email list was a mail from you indicating that you would implement your service as a singleton that didn't require EPRs. Now that I read that, I can see how this could have happened. At that point, if someone was paying really close attention, they would have realized that you had just agreed to a course of action that was unneccessarily drastic. However, I think most people left it at that because your email seemed to declare that you had come to a decision internally and as such didn't need to discuss the issue further.
Again, I am truly sorry that you feel like you wasted your time turning your service into a singleton, but please realize that while this incident is unfortunate, it is not necessarily the case that anything underhanded or clandestine occurred. I believe that it was simple miscommunication that lead to this unfortunate accident.
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I'm a little frustrated because I thought I made it clear when I was pushing for EPRs as a requirement that we needed clients to support the WS-Adressing headers. But since it sounded as though people didn't want to bother with this, I capitulated and made my service use a singleton resource that didn't need an EPR, limiting it's capabilities and wasting time. So now I find that people have agreed off list to support such a scenario and I'm left with not being interoperable.
What I'm saying is that I don't have an objection to this in principle, but it would have been nice if someone would have clarified this earlier on the list when I was arguing the that my service would also need to add a ReferenceParameters element. I saw no discussion of people implementing the soap headers in clients so that they could interop with such services.
Peter
Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before revolved around whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the WIKI pages for degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value (i.e., where metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as allowed by spec.). Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to a play URL, people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs. However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly expressed a desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client side, but has since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the GenesisII endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out of spec., or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use WS-Addressing for my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the headers.)?
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
This is what Chris said:
I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....
By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was
Mark Morgan wrote: the case,
then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field.
Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well?
At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing.
Peter
Mark Morgan wrote: > I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end > result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. > However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL). > -Mark > > -- > Mark Morgan > Research Scientist > Department of Computer Science > University of Virginia > http://www.cs.virginia.edu > mmm2a@virginia.edu > (434) 982-2047 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org >> [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane >> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM >> To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org >> Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status >> >> I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working >> locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will >> hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL >> snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this >> just mean that I have an FTP server running? >> >> Problems >> -------- >> I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations >> using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message >> is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services >> still up? >> >> I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL >> https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the >> client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the >> CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering >> if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, >> could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my >> debugging? >> >> After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use >> of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother >> implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform >> EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. >> The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that >> some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm >> rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that >> full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory? >> >> Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the >> following error: >> >> Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected >> [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate >> "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos >> t" expired]] >> >> Peter >> -- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
You're right ... it is a good idea. We're all working quite frantically towards the goal of SC demos, so it's hard to keep in mind that the interop testing is somewhat independent of that individual goal, and to document progress properly. -- Chris On 06/11/06 10:33, "Peter G. Lane" <lane@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
I'm just saying that I believe part of this activity should be to document our experiences so people can learn from them. I didn't have anything to post before I started this thread because I wasn't able to do any interop testing (i.e. no functioning client or service). Others have done testing, though, and I've seen no discussion of people's experiences. I already admitted that this wouldn't have necessarily prevented my dilemma and apologized for reacting in a manor that perhaps seemed harsh, but I do think it's a good idea.
Peter
Christopher Smith wrote:
It wasn't like we had a discussion and all of a sudden decided this or that. When I needed to interop with Mark's service, he required the WS-Addressing support in the client, so I could implement it and be interoperable, or give up interop with his endpoint. As it turned out, the WS-Addressing support I put in was done last after all other stuff.
I'm sorry if you wasted some time on this, but you also haven't been very vocal about your status yourself. Rich, Glenn, Mark and I have worked through lots of issues, but a lot of them come out in point to point issues.
-- Chris
On 06/11/06 09:12, "Peter G. Lane" <lane@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
I don't think anybody colluded behind my back, don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to say that we should be more open about our discussion of what people are doing to achieve interop. For example, if a discussion between you and Chris had been held on the list about him implementing the headers in his client so that he could talk to your service, I would have picked up on this sooner and perhaps been saved from last-minute problems. So while I think it's likely largely a miscommunication, more open communication is perhaps part of it too.
I don't mean every little detail should have been discussed (Glenn and I are discussing a problem off list as we write), but summaries of problems and how it was overcome would be appropriate in case others run into the same problems. But perhaps everybody just implemented the soap headers without talking to anyone else, so I'll admit there's no guarantee this would have been caught sooner.
I'm also panicking since I've not been able to use anybody's service so far. So I apologize if I came off as a bit flippant.
Peter
Mark Morgan wrote:
I'm very sorry that you feel this way Peter and that you felt like you were forced to handicap your service, but as I have been trying to say, people have NOT been colluding behind your back. I am pretty sure that you misunderstood the conversation that you refer to and that at no time did anyone ever say that you couldn't use WS-Addressing EPRs. My recollection of that entire conversation was that it revolved primarily around whether or not people were required to use WS-Addressing EndpointReferenceTypes, not whether or not they were allowed to (modulo Chris Smith's one comment on how he would rather not implement WS-Addressing in his client).
Looking back over the email history of that conversation, it started with an email from you on 13 October 2006 which said, "Endpoints should be posted as EPRs, not URLs." , to which Glenn Wasson responded, "Not everyone needs an EPR to contact the service."
From these two comments it seems clear to me that this conversation is about whether or not people were required to post WS-Addressing EPRs to the WIKI, not about whether or not they were allowed to implement and use WS-Addressing for their endpoints.
Further, the Chris Smith email you refer to contains the following text, " Instead of:
https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090
You want:
<wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"> <wsa:Address>https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090</wsa:Address> </wsa:EndpointReference> "
Again, notice that this is about representation on the wiki, not about WS-Addressing as an allowed protocol. This message indicates the means by which the two representations (for degenerate EPRs) can be transformed back and forth. In that email, he does make the statement you refer to, "I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....", but this is about his client, not the interop fest as a whole.
From their the discussion turned largely into one of transport binding terminology, but the final word on the email list was a mail from you indicating that you would implement your service as a singleton that didn't require EPRs. Now that I read that, I can see how this could have happened. At that point, if someone was paying really close attention, they would have realized that you had just agreed to a course of action that was unneccessarily drastic. However, I think most people left it at that because your email seemed to declare that you had come to a decision internally and as such didn't need to discuss the issue further.
Again, I am truly sorry that you feel like you wasted your time turning your service into a singleton, but please realize that while this incident is unfortunate, it is not necessarily the case that anything underhanded or clandestine occurred. I believe that it was simple miscommunication that lead to this unfortunate accident.
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I'm a little frustrated because I thought I made it clear when I was pushing for EPRs as a requirement that we needed clients to support the WS-Adressing headers. But since it sounded as though people didn't want to bother with this, I capitulated and made my service use a singleton resource that didn't need an EPR, limiting it's capabilities and wasting time. So now I find that people have agreed off list to support such a scenario and I'm left with not being interoperable.
What I'm saying is that I don't have an objection to this in principle, but it would have been nice if someone would have clarified this earlier on the list when I was arguing the that my service would also need to add a ReferenceParameters element. I saw no discussion of people implementing the soap headers in clients so that they could interop with such services.
Peter
Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before revolved around whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the WIKI pages for degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value (i.e., where metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as allowed by spec.). Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to a play URL, people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs. However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly expressed a desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client side, but has since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the GenesisII endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out of spec., or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use WS-Addressing for my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the headers.)?
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
> -----Original Message----- > From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM > To: Mark Morgan > Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org > Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status > > This is what Chris said: > > I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header > blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid > this detail for now.... > > By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build > clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was
Mark Morgan wrote: the case,
> then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an > address field. > > Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or > did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as > well? > > At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services > that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to > exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have > enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing. > > Peter > > Mark Morgan wrote: >> I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end >> result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. >> However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more > degenerate case of them (the pure URL). >> -Mark >> >> -- >> Mark Morgan >> Research Scientist >> Department of Computer Science >> University of Virginia >> http://www.cs.virginia.edu >> mmm2a@virginia.edu >> (434) 982-2047 >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org >>> [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane >>> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM >>> To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org >>> Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status >>> >>> I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working >>> locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by > them will >>> hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL >>> snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, > or does this >>> just mean that I have an FTP server running? >>> >>> Problems >>> -------- >>> I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net > implementations >>> using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the > client message >>> is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these > services >>> still up? >>> >>> I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL >>> https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the >>> client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and > install the >>> CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so > I'm wondering >>> if anyone has had success with this service recently. If > so, Chris, >>> could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my >>> debugging? >>> >>> After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused > about the use >>> of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother >>> implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. > The Platform >>> EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. >>> The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, > I see that >>> some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm >>> rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that >>> full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory? >>> >>> Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the >>> following error: >>> >>> Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected >>> [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate >>> "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos >>> t" expired]] >>> >>> Peter >>> -- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
I quite understand Peter and don't blame you at all for being frustrated. You are definitely right that more discussion on email list couldn't help but to improve things and with SC looming close I think everyone is feeling the pressure. And, I certainly understand about the email list -- unfortunately, its usually the case that the information that one usually wishes most to be published is that which isn't. Hindsight being what it is, the info about the headers would have been very helpful in the public view but sadly at the time it just hadn't occurred to us that anyone else would be interested. That, and we weren't even using email to discuss it but rather IM as a means of having a real-time conversation to promote debugging. Anyways, I do apologize for all of this mess and hope that it doesn't cause too much pain this week. Please feel free to let me know if there is anything I can do to help out! -Mark -- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:13 PM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I don't think anybody colluded behind my back, don't get me wrong. I'm just trying to say that we should be more open about our discussion of what people are doing to achieve interop. For example, if a discussion between you and Chris had been held on the list about him implementing the headers in his client so that he could talk to your service, I would have picked up on this sooner and perhaps been saved from last-minute problems. So while I think it's likely largely a miscommunication, more open communication is perhaps part of it too.
I don't mean every little detail should have been discussed (Glenn and I are discussing a problem off list as we write), but summaries of problems and how it was overcome would be appropriate in case others run into the same problems. But perhaps everybody just implemented the soap headers without talking to anyone else, so I'll admit there's no guarantee this would have been caught sooner.
I'm also panicking since I've not been able to use anybody's service so far. So I apologize if I came off as a bit flippant.
Peter
Mark Morgan wrote:
I'm very sorry that you feel this way Peter and that you felt like you were forced to handicap your service, but as I have been trying to say, people have NOT been colluding behind your back. I am pretty sure that you misunderstood the conversation that you refer to and that at no time did anyone ever say that you couldn't use WS-Addressing EPRs. My recollection of that entire conversation was that it revolved primarily around whether or not people were required to use WS-Addressing EndpointReferenceTypes, not whether or not they were allowed to (modulo Chris Smith's one comment on how he would rather not implement WS-Addressing in his client).
Looking back over the email history of that conversation, it started with an email from you on 13 October 2006 which said, "Endpoints should be posted as EPRs, not URLs." , to which Glenn Wasson responded, "Not everyone needs an EPR to contact the service."
From these two comments it seems clear to me that this conversation is about whether or not people were required to post WS-Addressing EPRs to the WIKI, not about whether or not they were allowed to implement and use WS-Addressing for their endpoints.
Further, the Chris Smith email you refer to contains the following text, " Instead of:
https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090
You want:
<wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
<wsa:Address>https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090</wsa:Address>
</wsa:EndpointReference> "
Again, notice that this is about representation on the
WS-Addressing as an allowed protocol. This message indicates the means by which the two representations (for degenerate EPRs) can be transformed back and forth. In that email, he does make
you refer to, "I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....", but this is about his client, not the interop fest as a whole.
From their the discussion turned largely into one of
terminology, but the final word on the email list was a mail from you indicating that you would implement your service as a singleton that didn't require EPRs. Now that I read that, I can see how
At that point, if someone was paying really close attention, they would have realized that you had just agreed to a course of action that was unneccessarily drastic. However, I think most
at that because your email seemed to declare that you had come to a decision internally and as such didn't need to discuss the issue further.
Again, I am truly sorry that you feel like you wasted your time turning your service into a singleton, but please realize
this incident is unfortunate, it is not necessarily the case that anything underhanded or clandestine occurred. I believe
simple miscommunication that lead to this unfortunate accident.
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:36 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I'm a little frustrated because I thought I made it clear when I was pushing for EPRs as a requirement that we needed clients to support the WS-Adressing headers. But since it sounded as though people didn't want to bother with this, I capitulated and made my service use a singleton resource that didn't need an EPR, limiting it's capabilities and wasting time. So now I find that people have agreed off list to support such a scenario and I'm left with not being interoperable.
What I'm saying is that I don't have an objection to this in principle, but it would have been nice if someone would have clarified this earlier on the list when I was arguing the that my service would also need to add a ReferenceParameters element. I saw no discussion of people implementing the soap headers in clients so that they could interop with such services.
Peter
Mark Morgan wrote:
Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before revolved around whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the WIKI pages for degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value (i.e., where metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as allowed by spec.). Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to a play URL, people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs. However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly expressed a desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client side, but has since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the GenesisII endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm or deny my interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out of spec., or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use WS-Addressing for my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
This is what Chris said:
I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had
this detail for now....
By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was
hoped to avoid the case,
then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field.
Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP
well?
At any rate, I should still be able to interop with
that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing.
Peter
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL). -Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
> -----Original Message----- > From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org > [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane > Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM > To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status > > I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working > locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by
Mark Morgan wrote: them will
> hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is
wiki, not about the statement transport binding this could have happened. people left it that while that it was headers.)? headers as those services there a WSDL
> snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this > just mean that I have an FTP server running? > > Problems > -------- > I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations > using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message > is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services > still up? > > I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL > https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the > client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the > CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering > if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, > could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my > debugging? > > After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use > of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother > implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform > EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. > The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that > some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm > rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that > full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory? > > Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the > following error: > > Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected > [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate > "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos > t" expired]] > > Peter >
Even though I had hoped to avoid it, Mark's service required the use of the EPR and the WS-Addressing support in the client, so I added it. :-) -- Chris On 06/11/06 08:08, "Peter G. Lane" <lane@mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
This is what Chris said:
I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now....
By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was the case, then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field.
Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well?
At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing.
Peter
Mark Morgan wrote:
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL).
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos t" expired]]
Peter
-- ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list ogsa-hpcp-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-wg
In order to have good effect on the SC06 Demo, we have done some modification on our WS-Addressing module to add the EPR ReferenceParamters to the SOAP header. The most important is some one using just simple address fields to identify their services, but others using the EPR. Another problem is some one is still using SOAP 1.1 in their implementation. When I choice to using SOAP 1.2 in our client, then we will got a fault from the server side, when using SOAP 1.1, everything is ok. Best Regards, Liang ZHONG Grid Computing Research Group Institute of Advanced Computing Technology, Beihang University Tel: +86 10 8231 6262 Fax: +86 10 8231 6796 Addr: Room 507, Building G,The New Main Building, 37# Xueyuan Rd., Haidian District, Beijing 100083, PRC -----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:09 AM To: Mark Morgan Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status This is what Chris said: I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had hoped to avoid this detail for now.... By this I was under the impression that nobody was going to build clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was the case, then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything more than an address field. Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point of view, or did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP headers as well? At any rate, I should still be able to interop with those services that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I won't have enough time to implement the agreed upon version of WS-Addressing. Peter Mark Morgan wrote:
I think you misunderstood the result of that discussion. The end result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs. However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more degenerate case of them (the pure URL).
-Mark
-- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a@virginia.edu (434) 982-2047
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos t" expired]]
Peter
Peter, I'm not sure what you mean by "either of the UVA .NET implementations". If you are talking about the service at https://wincluster1.cs.virginia.edu/HPCP/HPCPService.asmx, yes, it is still running. Try your client again and I will see if something appears in my logs. Glenn -----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running? Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up? I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging? After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory? Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error: Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhost" expired]] Peter
Ok, I tried it again and again got no response. Also, your JSDL document is not correct. It contains a wrapping ActivityDocument element that shouldn't be there. Peter Peter Glenn Wasson wrote:
Peter,
I'm not sure what you mean by "either of the UVA .NET implementations". If you are talking about the service at https://wincluster1.cs.virginia.edu/HPCP/HPCPService.asmx, yes, it is still running. Try your client again and I will see if something appears in my logs.
Glenn
-----Original Message----- From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Peter G. Lane Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM To: ogsa-hpcp-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
I have the create and terminate operations implemented and working locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by them will hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is there a WSDL snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation, or does this just mean that I have an FTP server running?
Problems -------- I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net implementations using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the client message is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these services still up?
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused about the use of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers. The Platform EPR is trivial so that's not a problem. The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said, I see that some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII endpoint, so I'm rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was decided that full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the following error:
Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential detected [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhost" expired]]
Peter
Peter G. Lane wrote: ...
I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error saying that the client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and install the CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so I'm wondering if anyone has had success with this service recently. If so, Chris, could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my debugging?
This turned out also to be a port mismatch. When I switched it to use 443 explicitly I was able to get it to work. So I've now successfully created and terminated an activity using Platform's service. Peter
participants (6)
-
Alessandro Maraschini -
Christopher Smith -
Glenn Wasson -
Liang Zhong -
Mark Morgan -
Peter G. Lane