November 2005 - ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

Teleconference minutes - 7 November 2005
by Andreas Savva 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20051107/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 7 November 2005 ===================================== * Participants Pete Ziu (Northorp Grumman) Jay Unger (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Frank Siebenlist (ANL) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Darren Pulsipher (Xango) Takuya Mori (NEC) Tom Maguire (EMC) Chris Jordan (SDSC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Apologies: Ellen Stokes, Fred Maciel Minutes: Andreas Savva * November 2 minutes approved with no changes * Profile Definition 1.0 update - Public comment has finished. There are a small number of comments but nothing major. - The GGF Editor has not officially returned the pen to OGSA-WG. The group will start preparing a new version. - Jem will take the pen and make an initial draft. - Tom will take the pen after Jem. * EMS, CDDLM, GRAAP joint call preparation ** CDDLM discussion preparation Reviewed Dejan's meeting notes from October 12 in preparation for the next call. - No issue with communication between CDDLM and ACS via data services (option 2) but eventually details of this interaction should be filled in. - ACS does not place restrictions on the application data it stores. It is up to EMS(CSG) to decide what is where. Action: Hiro will talk with the RSS-WG (owners of the CSG spec) and ask them to outline in a memo what information they expect to have and where it may be coming from (ACS, Information Services, etc.) - [And match that against what the ACS spec already defines.] - Estimate of deployment time - Agreed that this is not a high-priority item at the moment. - Defining the interface and not detailing how the estimation is carried out is a reasonable first step. (Estimation could be history based and also involve some prediction when deployment requests are received for the first time.) - Should this be a simple interface receiving a CDL fragment or one that unwinds a bigger CDL tree? For example, ask for estimates for deploying a CDL tree made of (A,B,C,D) (and considering deployments may be done in parallel) or ask separately for each A,B,C,D part? - Also in the more complex form what should happen if there is history for deploying B,C,D but not A. - Agreed that initially this interface may be very simple: either returns an estimate for whatever CDL (simple or complex) it receives; or "don't know" - Probably need a new sequence diagram to show the relative positioning of this service. [Need to decide when in the EMS Roadmap it appears.] - Hiro will follow up on other issues with Jay ** WS-Agreement discussion preparation - Not sure what the state of this work is as there has been no update from the volunteer team. * Glossary 1.5 review - Client/Service provider/Service requestor - Not sure if these are really needed. The definitions look ok so include them for now. - ACID : leave as is - CSG: leave as is - Component: Jem and Andreas to discuss offline - Context: leave as is - IPC: leave as is - Legacy program: leave as is - Manageability: Refer to WSDM and WS-Manageability specs for consistency (Jem) - Management: Revised definition Action: Jem will update the working glossary copy and the trackers. Action: Andreas to check the use of the term 'use case' in the Architecture document. * Naming proposal status update - Recap of key points from last call - Tom will have the written proposal (agreed on during the previous call) ready within the day. * Basic Security Profile - Draft not ready - postponed for next week * Teleconference schedule ** Next call - EMS discussion first; followed by Naming proposal review - UML tool review (given time) - Mike will send out his evaluation to the list before the call * Next week - SC'05 is next week. - Next Monday: OGSA-AuthZ joint call. (Deliverables, charter, collaboration topics, etc.) Action: Takuya to invite the OGSA-AuthZ team to the call.

2 1

Proposed agenda for Nov. 7th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 08 Nov '05

08 Nov '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Nov. 7th Monday from 4pm to 6pm (CST). *ATTENTION* From Oct. 31 and onward telecon starts one hour earlier 5pm EST = 4pm CST = 2pm PST = 10pm UK = 7am JST The dial-in number for Monday; Free: +1-866-639-4741 Toll: +1-574-935-6703 PIN: 8980700 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 1107 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (10 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (Nov. 2nd) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20051102/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) CDDLM/ACS/GRAAP joint call preparation (10 min) This Wednesday is a joint call with CDDLM/ACS/GRAAP in order to review progress after GGF15. EMS team needs to get ready for it. > From F2F minutes; > - Action: Agreed on two-pronged approach for CDDLM(+ACS) on one > side and EMS on the other to describe their approaches in > more detail and to then unify those approaches. (Note > these are 3 separate actions.) > - Action(1): CDDLM team volunteered to look into two issues that were > identified as requirements and report back in an OGSA call > 1. Where to draw the line in the (CDL) provisioning tree > (see above) > 2. How to provide the cost of configuration Dejan already sent out their discussion summary to the list; http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/10/msg00026.html > Actions(2): > - RSS-WG to produce abstract interface (and responsibilities) of EPS > and CSG. > - Clarify responsibilites/functionality of JM > - Andreas to send detailed EMS draft (pre OGSA 1.0) document to > Steven N. EMS team is working on "composition roadmap" https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/proposed-ems-roadmap/ > Action(3): Set up a team to explore WS_Agreements issues more, > especially relating to allocation and QoS assurance. And > come back to OGSA-WG on how to use WS-Agreement (possibly > evolved) with EMS. Clarify > - How WS-Agreement possibly needs to change to fit in OGSA > EMS > - Set the first review after 30 days; check what can be > done. > - Volunteers: Steven Newhouse (to lead), Dave Berry, Chris > Smith, (Jim Pruyne; not present >GRAAP-WG to confirm) 3) Common UML tool (20 min) > - Mike Behrens has some experience with a number of the listed > tools. He volunteered to check out the rest and give an > evaluation next week > - export/import as one required feature > > - One of the IBM participants will follow up and confirm the > procedures needed and that everyone can use the RSM tool, if the > group decides to go with it. 4) Basic Security Profile document review (60 min) Takuya will post revised draft before the call. 5) Glossary 1.5 discussion (20 min) Jem will lead several open issues in Glossary 1.5. 6) Wrap up (10 min) AOB <NEXT CALL> Nov. 9 (Wed) EMS architecture, CDDLM/ACS/GRAAP joint call information model & CIM profile Nov. 14 (Mon) OGSA-AuthZ joint call Basic Security Profile document final review, Architecture & Glossary 1.5 Nov. 16 (Wed) EMS architecture, information model & CIM profile Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ -- Hiro Kishimoto

2 4

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: One paragraph describing your expectations from the deployment component
by Milojicic, Dejan S 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

Thanks Ansdrew, We will get back to you before the meeting on Wednesday and we can discuss it in more detail at the meeting. Thank you very much for taking the time to summarize your expectations, it will go a long way towards clarifying how CDDLM can contribute to EMS. I am forwarding your email to the CDDLM mailing list. Best regards, Dejan > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Andrew Grimshaw > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 8:21 AM > To: Milojicic, Dejan S; 'Andrew Grimshaw' > Cc: 'Hiro Kishimoto'; 'Stuart Schaefer'; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-wg] RE: One paragraph describing your > expectations from the deployment component > > Dejan, et al, > > There are two basic things that EMS needs (in my opinion): > 1) The ability to identify on which hosts an activity can > execute because either the executable for the activity is > installed - or CAN BE installed. > 2) The ability to direct that the necessary components for an > activity be installed and configured in/on a container - > whether that means binaries and libraries, licenses, > databases, whatever. > > In both cases I do not want the activity started. > > Let me dive a bit deeper into both: > 1) The information needed to determine where an activity can > execute - either directly, or after some deployment step is > needed by RSS so that it can make scheduling decisions. While > it is not sufficient information to make scheduling > decisions, it is necessary. (Other info could include load, > whether a particular user has privileges or the necessary > currency, etc.) > > 2) Once a placement decision has been made then we must > ensure that the application/activity is ready to run on the > selected container resource. In the current JSDL model - all > of the information is carried in the executable information. > For more interesting, non-legacy, components latter, it is > likely that the mechanism in JSDL will not suffice. Thus, > something like: > Deploy("name of application/component", "name of container resource") > > Where each of the "names" are either path names in a > directory based service or EPR's of some sort. > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milojicic, Dejan S [mailto:dejan.milojicic@hp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:35 AM > To: Andrew Grimshaw > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; Stuart Schaefer > Subject: One paragraph describing your expectations from the > deployment component > > Hi Andrew, > > At Boston, you agreed to provide one paragraph describing > your expectations from the deployment component. You have > articulated it at that time. Using this paragraph, we'll > provide a feedback on how we match your expectations. > > Can you please provide this paragraph to us? This is in > preparation for the OGSA meeting on 11/9 which CDDLM > participants will join. > > Thanks, > > Dejan. > >

1 0

RE: One paragraph describing your expectations from the deployment component
by Andrew Grimshaw 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

Dejan, et al, There are two basic things that EMS needs (in my opinion): 1) The ability to identify on which hosts an activity can execute because either the executable for the activity is installed - or CAN BE installed. 2) The ability to direct that the necessary components for an activity be installed and configured in/on a container - whether that means binaries and libraries, licenses, databases, whatever. In both cases I do not want the activity started. Let me dive a bit deeper into both: 1) The information needed to determine where an activity can execute - either directly, or after some deployment step is needed by RSS so that it can make scheduling decisions. While it is not sufficient information to make scheduling decisions, it is necessary. (Other info could include load, whether a particular user has privileges or the necessary currency, etc.) 2) Once a placement decision has been made then we must ensure that the application/activity is ready to run on the selected container resource. In the current JSDL model - all of the information is carried in the executable information. For more interesting, non-legacy, components latter, it is likely that the mechanism in JSDL will not suffice. Thus, something like: Deploy("name of application/component", "name of container resource") Where each of the "names" are either path names in a directory based service or EPR's of some sort. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Milojicic, Dejan S [mailto:dejan.milojicic@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:35 AM To: Andrew Grimshaw Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; Stuart Schaefer Subject: One paragraph describing your expectations from the deployment component Hi Andrew, At Boston, you agreed to provide one paragraph describing your expectations from the deployment component. You have articulated it at that time. Using this paragraph, we'll provide a feedback on how we match your expectations. Can you please provide this paragraph to us? This is in preparation for the OGSA meeting on 11/9 which CDDLM participants will join. Thanks, Dejan.

1 0

RE: OGSA 1.5: transaction reference
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

WS-AtomicTransaction submission document to WS-TX TC in OASIS (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/) is http://xml.coverpages.org/WS-AtomicTransaction200508.pdf Some things to watch out for; references to the following specs: WS-Policy (just public at this point not in standards body) WS-PolicyAttachment (just public at this point not in a standards body) WS-SecurityPolicy (new TC WS-SX) WS-SecureConversation (new TC WS-SX) WS-Trust (new TC WS-SX) Also using the older August 2004 WS-Addressing specification. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:24 AM To: Maguire, Tom Cc: Dave Berry Subject: Re: OGSA 1.5: transaction reference Hi Tom This is another reminder for the action below. Andreas Savva wrote: > Hi Tom > > A reminder that you volunteered to provide a reference to the > Transactions spec. > > >> - Transactions: Tom to send reference > > > -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

Joining at approximately 5:30PM ET
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Thanks, Tom Senior Technologist, CTO Office EMC²|SMARTS 44 South Broadway 7th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Office: +1-914-508-3477 Mobile: +1-845-729-4806 Email: maguire_tom(a)emc.com <mailto:maguire_tom@emc.com> If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea. Antoine de Saint-Exupery

1 0

FW: [Fwd: Revised Selected Job Example]
by Treadwell, Jem 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi, I'm forwarding this for today's meeting on behalf of Steven... - Jem -----Original Message----- From: Steven Newhouse [mailto:sjn5@doc.ic.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:11 PM To: Treadwell, Jem Subject: [Fwd: Revised Seclected Job Example] -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Tel:+44 (0)2380 598789 Deputy Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute (OMII) Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, Southampton University, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

1 0

Proposed agenda for Nov. 2nd call
by Hiro Kishimoto 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Nov. 2nd Wednesday from 4pm to 6pm (CST). *ATTENTION* From Oct. 31 and onward telecon starts one hour earlier 5pm EST = 4pm CST = 2pm PST = 10pm UK = 7am JST Dial-in numbers for Wednesday: Free: +1-888-452-0308 Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505 PIN: 71815 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (10 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (Oct. 26) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20051026/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) EPR/WS-name use policy in OGSA (30 min) > - Add to the agenda a review the state of the naming > discussion/decisions. From F2F meeting minutes; > The group went through the exercise of doing a number of straw polls > to identify the weight people put on various approaches. > > In summary: > "MUST support EPRs, may support WS-Names or RRs or other things" > > It seems to depend on the situation whether to use something > beyond an EPR. Need more exploratory work to identify which areas > would benefit from using WS-Names or RenewableReference. > > - Proposal to also just say they are EPRs that may be decorated > (and hence be WS-Names) See also discussion thread; http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-bes-wg/2005/10/msg00002.html 3) EMS architecture discussion (30 min) usecase 2.4 "Dynamic Job Selection" > Instead of using a static pre-defined list of BES instances these > service interfaces will be obtained and selected from a service > registry (information service). With a defined selection language the > RSS implementation can be more sophisticated than in 2.3 allowing a > user defined selection policy to be applied to the available services > in the registry. Requirements: Information/Data model to represent > the service and a selection language. > > The state of art – EGEE & OSG & Naregi. https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_i… - Steven N will do a first draft. 4) information model discussion (30 min) > Action: Andrew to review and point out what is needed for the > BES container > - Goal for next Wed: A preliminary set of attributes that are > needed for the BES container 5) Common UML tool (20 min) > - Mike Behrens has some experience with a number of the listed > tools. He volunteered to check out the rest and give an > evaluation next week > - export/import as one required feature > - One of the IBM participants will follow up and confirm the > procedures needed and that everyone can use the RSM tool, if the > group decides to go with it. 6) Wrap up AOB <NEXT CALL> Nov. 7 (Mon) Basic Security Profile document final(?) review, Architecture & Glossary 1.5 Nov. 9 (Wed) EMS architecture, CDDLM/ACS/GRAAP joint call information model & CIM profile Nov. 14 (Mon) OGSA-AuthZ joint call Architecture & Glossary 1.5 Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

WS-RenewableReferences
by Andrew Harrison 01 Nov '05

01 Nov '05

Hi, Does anyone know the status of WS-RenewableReferences? I understand it's been removed from WSRF and have heard something about OGSA having a profile that covers the same area. Any ideas? cheers, Andrew

3 2

No RM teleconference on November 1st
by Fred Maciel 01 Nov '05

01 Nov '05

Hi, First of all, given that we are using the teleconferences of the OGSA-WG itself to discuss information modeling, the RM design team teleconferences are now in an "off-by-default" mode, i.e., if no announcement is posted then there won't be a teleconference. So, I didn't really need to post this announcement that we won't have a teleconference tomorrow, but I'm sending it just in case (for the last time...). Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0