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

Agenda for April 28 OGSA-BES conference call
by Andrew Grimshaw 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

The BES teleconference is scheduled for this Thursday, April 28,(US) at 10 AM eastern. The dial in number (thanks IBM) is: Free: +1-800-664-6895 Toll: +1-719-955-1126 passcode: 285178 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net <http://ogsa.glance.net/> Session key: 0428 Agenda for April 28 OGSA-BES conference call Agenda bashing Basic interface discussion - try to reach agreement (no pun intended) Review of concepts presented at BOF in Korea Common theme Some_sort_of_handle submit(JSDL_doc job_description) // Note, this punts the discussion of what we need in the JSDL to a later discussion Then a set of management functions for jobs Strawman interface (based on Steven's document) Propose slight modification to extend it beyond legacy jobs, and give the handle a "type", e.g., WS-Name instantiate(JSDL_doc job_description) Set of management functions Wrap-up

1 0

NO OGSA BP CALL TODAY
by Tom Maguire 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

There will be an updated OGSA BP spec to grid forge today. Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. – Antoine de Saint-Exupery T o m M a g u i r e STSM, On Demand Architecture Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

1 0

paper available: "Alternative Software Stacks for OGSA-based Grids"
by Marty Humphrey 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

Hi, We have just written what I hope will be a productive contribution to the efforts of this group. It's essentially our experiences implementing WS-Transfer and using a publicly-available WS-Eventing, and comparing it to WSRF and WSRF.NET. As we all know, it's a difficult/controversial subject, but we're hoping we can help the community with a concrete implementation and evaluation. Title: Alternative Software Stacks for OGSA-based Grids Abstract: The Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA) has been a major step forward for Grid Computing, but its de facto reliance on the Web Services Resource Framework (WSRF) and WS-Notification have left some in the community questioning if the Grid software and protocols have become too complex. In this paper, we consider the feasibility of an "alternative" software stack, based on WS-Transfer and WS-Eventing. We compare and evaluate WSRF/WS-Notification vs. WS-Transfer/WS-Eventing, first via a "hello world" service and then via a more complete Grid scenario for remote execution called "Grid-in-a-Box". By qualitatively and quantitatively evaluating each approach, we find that subtle differences exist (e.g., the naming of resources, the creation of resources) but they are overwhelmingly equivalent in their functionality and implied performance. Overall, this paper uniquely shows that there could be alternative software stacks for OGSA-based Grids. Full info: M. Humphrey, G. Wasson, Y. Kiryakov, S-M. Park, D. Del Vecchio, N. Beekwilder, and J. Gray. Alternative Software Stacks for OGSA-based Grids. University of Virginia Department of Computer Science Tech Report CS-2005-06. April 2005. Available: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~humphrey/papers/AlternativeSoftwareStacksOGSA.pd f We look forward to any comments and discussion! Regards, Marty Marty Humphrey Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science University of Virginia

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 25 April 2005
by Andreas Savva 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050425/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 25 April 2005 =================================== * Participants Jay Unger (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Steven Newhouse (OMII) Mark Morgan (UVa) Tom Maguire (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Dave Berry (NeSC) [first 15 minutes] Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Minutes: Andreas Savva * April 20 minutes approved with no changes * May F2F update - Choosing the same hotel is a good idea to make it more convenient to meet off-hours. Internet connectiviy may not be an issue since it should be ok during the day at IC. - The Rydges hotel on Gloucester Rd was one choice. Andrew will follow up. Action: Andrew to mail out the hotel recommendation * EMS related work - How to follow up with the people (Germany, Naregi, etc) who volunteered to do RSS (CSG) work. It is not clear if anyone from the OGSA-WG has the time to commit to follow up on this effort at the moment. Some of them are coming to the May F2F but it may be a good idea to talk to them in advance. Action: Hiro and Andrew to coordinate and arrange a call with the people who volunteered to start up the RSS group. Preferably arrange it this week and in any case before the F2F. * Profile definition document review (v1.5) - Tracker exists but no issues registered yet. Action: Tom to check and upload any unresolved issues. - No comments on the "Status" or "Abstract" sections ** Section 1 (On a side-note it was mentioned that the DMTF has decided to use ISO terminology rather than RFC 2119. The downside is that there is more variation in the use of words. For example, many different flavors of MUST.) ** Section 2 - [2.1] - Delete 'similar to' as it does not add anything. - 'claim attachment mechanism' : Does WS-I have 'many' such mechanisms and if so which is being referred to here? - Tom confirmed that there is only 1 such document (WSDL 1.1 claims, UDDI claims, ...). Action: Tom to provide a proper reference to the WS-I claims document. ** Section 3.2 *** Status - 'consortium of one or more': Does 'one' make sense in this context? The idea is not to preclude specs coming from one company. This statement does need to be revised for clarity, however. - Is 'consortium' the right word here? And should a consortium category be listed or not? Examples of consortia: DAT collaborative, EGA, etc. Consensus that it is worth leaving in 'consortium' and making the distinction that a specification from one company would mean a 'draft' categorization. Proposal that to make things clearer examples should be added for each category defined. In the order given in the document the following examples were mentioned for each category: - WS-Security - WSDL 1.1 - WSRF, WSN - EGA or perhaps SNIA specs: SMIS, EGA reference models etc - Evolving standard comment in document: Agree with it; Delete. *** Adoption levels - Need to point out that 'Adoption' levels are 'additive': the next level builds on top of the lower level definition; no exceptions. - Consensus that definitions are to some extent subjective (e.g., what defines a community?) and that there is no way to get over this subjectivity completely. The classification is intended as a guideline and the actual decision will be done by a group of people (so judgement calls and consensus will be needed). Agreed to leave definition as is. - 'Ubiquitous' statement: - 'but' is really an 'and'. - Reached rough consensus on what is 'ubiquitous' (e.g., html, http, tcp/ip) but not sure how to wordsmith the definition to bring out the desired meaning. Action: Tom will follow up on ubiquitous definition on the list. ** Section 3.4: Restrictions Agreed to leave intentionally vague. Tom will review text again. ** Section 4: Profile type distinction - The decision on profile document type depends on the state of the referenced specs. It is not clear whether the evaluation of the state of the referenced specs should be made strictly at submission time or whether there should be more 'freedom'; i.e., allow a profile to enter the recommendation track based on the expectation that the referenced specs will be at the right state when publication time comes. The consensus on the call was to add wording that the criteria should be satisfied at submission time. This decision was made on the assumption that the GGF process does not permit revisions of a 'proposed recommendation' document and that since a change in the referenced specs would result in such a revision the document would be invalidated anyway. The only concern here is that of extra serialization and backtracking for what may be only minor changes. - There seems to be no problem with submitting a document on one track and also (perhaps partially overlapping) re-submitting it on another. (A document could also be withdrawn from one track in this case). The motivating use case here is a profile being submitted on the information track but due to rapid changes in the states of the specification it uses becoming eligible for the recommendation track. In this case the process would start again; switching tracks without restarting the process does not look like good practice. - Agreed to drop 'evolving' from proposed recommendation - Agreed to delete existing comments on informational profiles - Tom will look at other options for putting profile documents in a 'lighter' publication track without going through the requirements of the recommendation track. (Community, experimental were mentioned.) * JSDL introduction Overview of parts of JSDL relative to draft 16. (Draft 17 is out and there is work to produce draft 18) Same presentation as that given to the DMTF Utility WG Focus is describing requirements at submission. But submission API and results of submission are out of scope. Also no elements that describe post-submission concepts, e.g., job id generated by submission system. This is done simply for scoping purposes. Spec provides a number of extensibility points and other information (e.g., job id) can be added. Normative extensions for the known gaps may be produced at a later time. [Slide 6] JSDL version 1.0 only attempts to cover a part of what is needed. More work, possibly by other groups is expected to cover this area. For example, scheduling, workflow, etc. Abstract-refined-incarnated/grounded: This model is supported but not required by JSDL. Submitter can write a document at the desired level. (EMS big-picture implies this kind of refinement too so JSDL is aligned with that approach.) Data staging is a common requirement (not 'fundamental' as the slide mentions). The copy and completion semantics are built in but it may not be necessary to copy over existing files (overwrite or not). Some more refined cases may be covered using the filesystem attribute. It was not clear how RNS work could be used here. Need more discussion offline. JSDL examples slides: - slide 11: an example of adding a job id extension element - slide 12: user section has been deleted in the latest pre-draft. - slide 13: Application and its extensibility (POSIXApplication) - Why not define as application types and draw out commonalities? - Application types were defined in an earlier draft. One problem is that there was not that much commonality between the different types: e.g., a posix application versus a WS invocation or a SQL call. Common parts seemed to be just name and version. - slide 16: Resource definition does not offer sufficient abstraction. (Also the order that is used to present the elements in the slide is problematical.) - The starting point (and main use cases) is existing DRMs. More generalization may be needed but it is also necessary to make sure the existing systems and use cases are covered. - It is possible to completely ignore the jsdl sub-resource elements (all are optional) and use a different resource description if that is more appropriate and if another standard comes along. - <exact> and <lowerboundedrange> are part of a rangevalue definition. - slide 17: In certain cases, values are also defined in addition to elements: Processor architectures and OS types are such examples. The values are based on CIM defined ones. - slide 18: the source or target urls also define the protocol that should be used for the transfer, e.g., http, rsync, and so on. How far along is the group? The goal is to submit the spec to the GGF Editor before GGF14.

1 0

OGSA Roadmap doc v5 uploaded
by Treadwell, Jem 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Hi, I've uploaded v5 of the OGSA Roadmap document for review at Wednesday's meeting - you can find it at: http://tinyurl.com/ccsza. These are mostly my usual nitpick editing changes, and there are a lot of them, so given that the document is quite short it's probably easiest to read it with a fresh eye than try to follow the changes. 1) Although the changes are significant, I didn't intentionally change any substance, except as noted below - just reworded things in some places. 2) In 2.2, OGSA Profiles, there seemed to be a problem with the flow - it went back mid-section and described again what OGSA Profiles are, but in a different way. So I reorganized it to what I believe is a logical flow, by moving paragraphs and, in some cases, parts of sentences around (e.g. the first sentence was moved from the middle of the section). Other than one para (the one that begins "In addition...") I don't believe I changed the wording much in this section - the changes are all just cut and paste, and I haven't deleted anything. 3) In 2.4, OGSA Branding, I had some problems with the original wording, and reworded it to what I *think* it was intended to say. I may have got this wrong, so it will need careful review! But I'm aware that Hiro was passing this section to the GFSG, so we may want to reject these changes and leave it as is until we have agreement. I've also reviewed the Tracker items that Hiro had set to "fixed," and closed all but one of them. - Jem -- Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company Phone: (732) 577-6043 200 Route 9 North Fax: (732) 577-6003 Manalapan, NJ 07726 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com

1 0

Proposed agenda for April 27th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on April 27th Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CDT). 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: 0427 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 Agenda bashing 2) OGSA roadmap document review (60 min) Jem is now working on the document. Tracker for the roadmap. https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… Spec schedule template proposal. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/spec-schedule-templat… 1 3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB May 2 (5-7pm CDT) Profile definition discussion May 4 (5-7pm CDT) <TBD> See telecon schedule until May F2F: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

spec schedule template for roadmap document
by Hiro Kishimoto 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Hi all, Attached is a proposed schedule template for (1) OGSA informational document, (2) OGSA normative interface, (3) OGSA profile, and (4) OGSA informational profile. Thank you Andreas and Mark for reviewing early draft of this template. Please have a look and give your feedback at this Wednesday call. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA-D mailing list (for new Data Architecture working group)
by Hiro Kishimoto 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Hi all, Dave Berry's email bounced since it includes word "sub scribe" ---- Hiro Kishimoto Subject: OGSA-D mailing list (for new Data Architecture working group) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:02:10 +0100 From: "Dave Berry" <daveb(a)nesc.ac.uk> To: "ogsa-wg" <ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org> Dear all, The OGSA-D working group has been approved and a new mailing list has been created. To sub-scribe to the list, please email majordomo(a)ggf.org with the following line in the TEXT of the message (without double quotes): "subscribe ogsa-d-wg" Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

OGSA-BES charter
by Andrew Grimshaw 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

All, The attached was sent to the GFSG for approval on Sunday. It is the document we discussed last Thursday. An agenda for this Thursday's call will follow tomorrow. Andrew

1 0

Data: forthcoming telcons & proposed agenda for this week
by Dave Berry 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

Dear all, OGSA-D telcons will take place on Wednesdays, starting on this Wednesday 27th April, at 8:00am PDT / 11:00am EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST. We intend these calls to include technical discussions. PIN for all calls: 632 065 UK Dial In: 0845 245 0224 US Dial In: 1866 838 0046 International Dial In: +44 1452 542309 The following is a provisional list of topics by week until the F2F meeting on May 26th. There are probably also issues that cut across these topics, which we will track and address. Apr 27 - Replication May 4 - Data access May 11 - Data storage May 18 - Document review & plan for F2F Here is a provisional agenda for this week. 1) Early discussion (5 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Minutes approval of last design team call (attached) Agenda bashing 2) Action report (5 min) - Dave to mail contributors re common section structure. [Done] - Dave to add version number to header and accept current changes. [Done] - Dave to ask NextGrid/InfoD about transfer to non-service endpoints. [Done] - Allen to get in touch with Steve Crumb about setting up the WG. [Done] - Dave to mail F2F meeting info to relevant people who aren't on the OGSA WG mailing list. [Done] - Dave to propose a presentation of data area work to the main OGSA F2F. [Done] - Dave to ping Malcolm regarding data transfer discussions at the F2F. [Done] - Dave to mail contributors to see which weeks they can attend, with an eye to setting agendas. [Done] 3) WG plans (10 min) Use of trackers Topics for future meetings. 4) F2F planning (10 min) - Date: May 26th. Place: London. - Discussion of agenda. 5) Technical content (25 min) - Update from contributors - Discussion of issues arising 6) Wrap up (5 min) AOB DONM Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0