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

WSRF BP 1.0 v29 uploaded
by Andreas Savva 20 Jul '05

20 Jul '05

WSRF BP v29 uploaded. This is for review in the call tomorrow. (v28 was uploaded after the last call by Tom.) Hiro and I accepted a number of old, already reviewed changes. (This 'uncovered' a number of comments that should be reviewed tomorrow.) We also made some minor edits. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-basic-profile/en/24 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 17 July 2005
by Andreas Savva 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Minutes attached. - August F2F update - WSRF BP 1.0 review - Resource modelling discussion - RNS specification review https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050718/en/1 or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20050718/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 17 July 2005 ================================== * Participants Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Jay Unger (IBM) Osamu Tatebe (AIST) Latha Srinivasan (HP) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Manuel Pereira (IBM) Steven Newhouse (OMII) Takuya Mori (NEC) Mark Morgan (UVa) Tom Maguire (IBM) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Dave Berry (NeSC) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) * Minutes approval Minutes approved with minor changes. Proposed changes described in http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/07/msg00056.html * August F2F updates - Andrew is leaving Thursday - Proposal to start Naming early and finish at 11am on Thursday; or move the Naming session to Wednesday - Agreed to move Naming session to Wednesday - Hiro and Mark have to leave before Friday noon - Agreed to start Friday early and if possible finish the session by 11am; continue without them, if necessary. - ByteIO moved to Tuesday - Proposal to allocate time during the F2F for resource modelling - Hiro to allocate three hours on Wednesday afternoon in the OGSA session. - WSDM conflict update: Heather Kreger has agreed to move the WSDM meeting to another week. - Hiro has contacted Allen L.: Prefers Data session later in the week. - Data moved to Thursday - Dave B wants to have a discussion on data staging as a separate job rather than as part of a single job. A number of JSDL-WG members will be at the F2F so having a discussion as part of the Data session is a possibility. * WSRF BP 1.0 review - Tom has uploaded v27 on gridforge Action: Tom continues to have the pen and will upload a new draft after the call. ** Canonizalization proposal - There are several (three) canonicalization proposals but many do not define a serialization. The proposed addition (below) does. - l.336-340 modified to use the OASIS specification "Schema Centric XML Canonicalization." - Also softened language (MUST to SHOULD) because it is not clear what the implementation status of this specification is. - This specification is a 'Committee Specification.' In other words, the specification has been approved by the TC as a CD, submitted to public comment (and only minor changes were required to address comments). But it has not gone through a final approval vote. In terms of the Profile Definition classification it is at least "Evolving Institutional." Action: Tom will check to see the implementation status. (Contact the IBM co-author of this proposal.) Action: Takuya will review this addition. He will also check the implementation status (within NEC). Agreed to delete comments against this proposal. ** Security Discussed security issues raised on the list. Action: Tom to arrange a separate teleconf to discuss the security issues below. Invite Marty, Dave S, Mark McKeown, Frank, Takuya. *** Signed endpoint references Issue raised on the list by Mark McKeown http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/07/msg00049.html - Presumably transport level security would not require this. - For Message level security, need to define what to sign; probably everything including reference properties. Action: Takuya will follow up with Frank on whether it should be mandated. *** Mandating transport or message security The profile as it stand does not allow non-encrypted messages or channels. There are cases when one would not want either, e.g., large data transfers that may cause performance degradation. Also depending on the environment it might be acceptable to not encrypt (e.g., operating within enterprise (behind firewall)). (If corruption is the issue then signatures and not encryption is appropriate.) Consensus on softening the requirement: - Change l.466 'requires' to 'recommends' - And also change transport level compliance statements R0811-14 from MUST to SHOULD. *** Mutual authentication - Discussed and agreed on last week. - The non-normative text is out of sync with the normative text. Agreed to change l.489 to 'recommended.' Action: Takuya to reply to Marty's email. *** User name/password authentication There is no statement about name/password authentication in the WSRF BP. It is allowed by the WS-I Security BP (token authentication). l.491 is problematical, however. The phrasing explicitly allows only x.509. But this is a non-normative statement and no normative statements back this up. Action: Takuya will look into this issue and report back to the group. * Resource modelling discussion [Timeboxed to 15 minutes.] The BES has put resource modelling out of scope. But it looks more and more that OGSA should face this issue sooner rather than later. And avoid or minimize rework later on There was a presentation about CIM/JSDL mapping at GGF14. This is a good starting point and OGSA-WG should discuss whether CIM is the solution for OGSA. The main questions are - what is a reasonable model for OGSA (for Grid); and - is CIM it Are there other candidates besides CIM? - It was noted that WSDM also seems to be turning towards CIM. - GLUE is an option but there is work to provide a CIM mapping. The rendering and semantics distinction/definition is discussed in GFD-I.45. Available at http://www.ggf.org/documents/GFD.45.pdf There is also the WS-CIM work. The group should check how far that work satisfies OGSA requirements. Initially a limited experiment might be in order. For example apply CIM to BES/JSDL. But BES-WG cannot take this work on, and RSS-WG also is moving to put it out of scope. One related issue is how to 'sell' CIM to the wider Grid community. It was proposed to put together a concrete proposal in a document format so as to have something concrete to discuss by the F2F. The RM call agenda (Tuesday) is set to discuss this topic. And continue this discussion on another OGSA call (possibly next Monday). * RNS specification review Draft: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gfs-wg/document/RNS-Proposed_Final_Dra… Manuel gave an overview of the specification. The referenced draft is being prepared for submission. - Some grid file system parts (e.g. one of the appendices) will be removed for final submission. - Also to remove sentence in Sec.1.2.1 about manipulation via WSRF. It gives the wrong impression. Andrew had a number of comments and he will post them on the OGSA and GFS lists. There are two ways to proceed: - GFS submits the document to GGF Editor soon and there is followup discussion as part of the public comment period; or - GFS discusses with OGSA, adjusts the RNS specification if necessary and then submits. Action: Manuel will take this proposal back to the GFS group and will let OGSA know in a subsequent email. * Next call (Wednesday) - Next steps discussion - Teleconf schedule - WSRF BP 1.0 review

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 13 July 2005
by Andreas Savva 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Minutes attached. - August F2F update (fixed: Aug 15-19, @Sunnyvale) - OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Security section review - Other business https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050713/en/1 or http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20050713/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconfence - 13 July 2005 ================================ * Participants Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Jay Unger (IBM) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Takuya Mori (NEC) Mark Morgan (UVa) Tom Maguire (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Apologies: Andrew Grimshaw Minutes: Andreas Savva * July 11 Minutes approved with no changes * August F2F meeting update ** Venue - Andreas is following up with the (Fujitsu) Sunnyvale arrangements. - Jay is contacting Almaden ** Schedule - ByteIO requested an earlier slot (not Friday) - Mark has to leave early and Neil cannot make Friday - Considered and rejected moving Naming to Friday - It is likely that ByteIO will not need a half-a-day slot. - Agreed that having a regular session on Friday is not a good idea. Friday morning should be reserved for wrap up. - And that the sessions could start earlier on other days to accomodate the extra session. - Agreed to start early on Thursday and put ByteIO in that slot. - WSDM conflict - Jay/Fred could not contact Heather yet. - Not sure about Allen L's schedule. (Affects Data session) * OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Security section review Based on draft sent out by Takuya http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/07/msg00037.html - Sec.8.1. Should use the same style as the other sections. - Add a statement that there are no extensibility points beyond those in WS-I BSP. (Takuya) - l.451: References should be in the same style as the rest of the document. Delete. (Takuya) - Also, if the TLS and HTTP-TLS references are not cited they should be deleted (Confirmed they can be cited against other text.) (Takuya) - l.454: Text added in response to tracker 1320 (require one or the other). Change is ok. - Sec.8.1.2: On mandating the use of mutual authentication - Latha's comment needs followup. Since Latha is not on the call, follow up by email and finalize at next Monday's call. - Agreed that this requirement is very restrictive. - This was discussed at the Security session at GGF14. The reason given for mandating it, is that the profile addresses inter-organization (server to server) interactions and that the expectation is that those interactions must be secured. If operating in some special environment it might be possible to do things differently but then interoperability is not the main concern.(?) - The concern with mandating this requirement is that it sets too high a bar, especially for existing middleware. Very few, if any, systems do this at the moment. (The mechanism of acquiring and validating credentials is the problem not their usage afterwards.) It seems overly restrictive and many people might not be able to comply to this profile because of this. - The consensus on the call was therefore to soften this requirement. Specifically to change the requirement from MUST to SHOULD (or possibly RECOMMENDS; semantically equivalent to SHOULD but slightly different nuance). - Sec.8.1.3: Changes are ok. - [Comment JT8]: Clarified that the introductory paragraph is informative text and should not use normative terminology. Only the compliance statements should do so. - There are a couple of places where this is not observed and they should be checked and changed during for the final review. (Hiro) - Sec.8.1.4: Add a normative reference to XML-Signature (Takuya) - And also rebuild the table at the back (Hiro) - Sec.8.1.5: Changes are ok. - Sec.8.1.6: Re-write the first paragraph in the same style as the other sections. (Takuya) - R0824: Appendix A reference is wrong and should be fixed. (Takuya) - Sec.8.1.7: SAML Token Profile 1.0 reference is needed. Also by adding this reference an earlier section that discusses the relation of this profile to other profiles has to be updated (Takuya) - Otherwise ok. - Appendix E - l.936: The definition of EndpointKeyInfo should also be added to the normative schema in Appendix D. (Takuya) - Editing Actions: 1. Takuya to update the document and put on gridforge as draft 25 2. Hiro to update table 3. If anyone wants the pen talk to Hiro after that. * Other Business ** Roadmap document - Public comment ends July 29 - No comments received yet - All group members should solicit comments for this document ** Resource modelling - Confirmed that Resource modeling is on the agenda of the Monday call. - Jay, Mark, Andrew had a call to discuss the issue. They will also discuss it in the BES call. ** Agenda for Monday call 1. Final call on BP 2. Resource modelling 3. RNS specification review

2 2

where does resource modeling fits in?
by Hiro Kishimoto 19 Jul '05

19 Jul '05

Steven's email bounced. -- Hiro Kishimoto Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:58:27 +0100 From: Steven Newhouse <s.newhouse(a)omii.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA RM teleconference -- where does resource modeling fits in? >> First of all, sorry for the cross-posting -- this subject involves all >> three WGs. Well this is bound to bounce from one of these lists... I'm not going to sub scribe just for this thread... >> Since GGF14 there have been a lot of discussions on where resource >> modeling fits -- BES considered it out of scope but Andrew thinks it's not >> totally out; RSS is discussing whether it's in scope; and this was discussed >> in the OGSA-WG also. So, let's discuss this in the Resource Modeling design >> team teleconference (which is, in fact, the place to discuss this). I feel this has been discussed to exhaustion - at the F2F, GGF 14 & at last week's calls. While I would not object revisiting this from a BES perspective at somepoint in the future I'd like to have a solid proposal to discuss. I'm sure this would be of benefit to RSS and the OGSA group as a whole. Does such a document exist? Could it be circulated? If not could someone commit to generating it? And I'm not after a long CIM document to read... Is there a more concrete agenda possible for Tuesday's call? Regards, Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

OGSA RM teleconference -- where does resource modeling fits in?
by Fred Maciel 18 Jul '05

18 Jul '05

Hi, First of all, sorry for the cross-posting -- this subject involves all three WGs. Since GGF14 there have been a lot of discussions on where resource modeling fits -- BES considered it out of scope but Andrew thinks it's not totally out; RSS is discussing whether it's in scope; and this was discussed in the OGSA-WG also. So, let's discuss this in the Resource Modeling design team teleconference (which is, in fact, the place to discuss this). Oh, yes, part of this was supposed to be discussed in the RM teleconference this week, but only I and Ellen could come... Here are the details: Date: Tuesday, July 19th, at the following times: - 11:00-12:00 US Pacific (GMT - 7) - 12:00-13:00 US Mountain (GMT - 6) - 13:00-14:00 US Central (GMT - 5) - 14:00-15:00 US Eastern (GMT - 4) - 18:00-19:00 GMT - 19:00-20:00 UK (GMT + 1) - 20:00-21:00 Central Europe (GMT + 2) - 03:00-04:00 Japan (GMT + 9, following day) -- sorry. Dial-in: Toll Free: (888) 422-7120 Int'l Access: (608) 250-0194 Participant code: 693305 If screen sharing is needed, let's use Glance: URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0719 Explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html See you there, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

3 2

OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 draft 25
by Takuya Mori 16 Jul '05

16 Jul '05

Hi all, As discussed in the call today, I updated the OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 document and uploaded it to the GridForge. And, I'd like to pass the pen to Hiro. OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 draft 25: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… ---- Takuya Mori

2 2

Fwd: Re: [ogsa-wg] Comments on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 draft 25 (specifically security)
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

Tom's email bounced. ---- Hiro Kishimoto > To: humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu, ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: Fwd: Re: [ogsa-wg] Comments on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 draft 25 (specifically security) > From: <tom.maguire(a)suscom.net> > Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 9:18:00 -0400 during the 7/13 telecon we agreed to relax the MUST requirements for mutual auth to SHOULD. The descriptive paragraph above the reqt should be changed so that it is clear that the reqts are recommendations. The descriptions are non-normative anyway :-) -----Original Message----- From: Steve Tuecke <tuecke(a)univa.com> Subj: Re: [ogsa-wg] Comments on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 draft 25 (specifically security) Date: Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:36 am Size: 3K To: David Snelling <David.Snelling(a)UK.Fujitsu.com> cc: humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu, Steve Tuecke <tuecke(a)univa.com>, ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Can you briefly recount the arguments for making message security required? I would tend to agree with Marty on this point, for two reasons. First, I think there are a variety of services (or operations) that can be done anonymously, such as some information services. Second, the cost of security in terms of performance can be very high, so to mandate it even when its not needed seems a bit extreme. -Steve On Jul 15, 2005, at 4:13 AM, David Snelling wrote: >> Marty, >> >> Your interpretation of the profile is correct. On several occasions we >> have discussed this very issue and each time the conclusion has been >> consistent with the current draft. If you think the case for relaxing >> the profile is stronger now than on earlier calls and F2F meetings, we >> should schedule a time when you can make the call. Hiro tell me that >> the BP is on the agenda for Monday's call. Can you make it? >> >> Note the the profile dose not outlaw myProxy to GSI and anything else. >> It just says that for interoperability, these published standard >> techniques MUST/SHOULD/MAY be supported by compliant systems. The >> systems can and will use other techniques. In Unicore/GS we will >> continue to use the proprietary UPL/ETDF framework while also >> supporting the BP. >> >> Talk to you on Monday (if I can stay awake). >> >> >> On 15 Jul 2005, at 2:09, humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu wrote: >> > >>>> I assume that this document has not entered public comment, so I'll >>>> post my >>>> comments here regarding security. I'm afraid that these are largely >>>> the SAME >>>> comments that I've made before. >>>> >>>> Here are my specific concerns... >>>> >>>> The security section (section 8.1) implies that *EVERY* SOAP message >>>> must be >>>> either (1) over TLS or (2) "SOAP Message security with XML signature >>>> and/or >>>> XML Encryption". If you truly mean this (implied by "R0811"), this is >>>> overly >>>> restrictive and makes no sense (there does not exist *ANY* message >>>> that can >>>> justifiably be sent between services/clients that need not incur the >>>> overhead >>>> of crypto?). However, it's not clear if you really mean this >>>> ("R0819", "R0820", "R0821", "R0822", "R0823" seem to imply >>>> otherwise)... so, >>>> what exactly is the intention here? >>>> >>>> In general, section 8.1.2 is too restrictive -- "mutual-authenticated >>>> WS- >>>> Communication will be required" is overly restrictive. And this >>>> section >>>> includes this statement: "The Profile mandates that there be no >>>> anonymous >>>> communication. To ensure interoperability, only X.509 >>>> certificate-based >>>> authentication is permitted by the Profile.") So, this latter part in >>>> particular says that there is *NO PLACE* for password authentication >>>> in OGSA. >>>> (I also believe that you have now outlawed MyProxy, right?) >>>> >>>> Am I reading something incorrectly? >>>> >>>> -- Marty >>>> >>>> Marty Humphrey >>>> Assistant Professor >>>> Department of Computer Science >>>> University of Virginia >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------- >>>> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ >>>> --- message truncated ---

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Comments on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 draft 25 (specifically security)
by Dave Berry 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

Dave, I recall that when Marty raised this issue before GGF14, he was asked to leave discussion of it until after GGF14 (possibly with the intention of ensuring some public comment following submission of the document?). I would certainly be interested in joining dicussion of Marty's points on a call. Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of David Snelling > Sent: 15 July 2005 10:14 > To: humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu > Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Comments on OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 draft 25 > (specifically security) > > Marty, > > Your interpretation of the profile is correct. On several > occasions we > have discussed this very issue and each time the conclusion has been > consistent with the current draft. If you think the case for relaxing > the profile is stronger now than on earlier calls and F2F > meetings, we > should schedule a time when you can make the call. Hiro tell me that > the BP is on the agenda for Monday's call. Can you make it? > > Note the the profile dose not outlaw myProxy to GSI and > anything else. > It just says that for interoperability, these published standard > techniques MUST/SHOULD/MAY be supported by compliant systems. The > systems can and will use other techniques. In Unicore/GS we will > continue to use the proprietary UPL/ETDF framework while also > supporting the BP. > > Talk to you on Monday (if I can stay awake). > > > On 15 Jul 2005, at 2:09, humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu wrote: > > > I assume that this document has not entered public comment, so I'll > > post my > > comments here regarding security. I'm afraid that these are largely > > the SAME > > comments that I've made before. > > > > Here are my specific concerns... > > > > The security section (section 8.1) implies that *EVERY* > SOAP message > > must be > > either (1) over TLS or (2) "SOAP Message security with XML > signature > > and/or > > XML Encryption". If you truly mean this (implied by > "R0811"), this is > > overly > > restrictive and makes no sense (there does not exist *ANY* message > > that can > > justifiably be sent between services/clients that need not > incur the > > overhead > > of crypto?). However, it's not clear if you really mean this > > ("R0819", "R0820", "R0821", "R0822", "R0823" seem to imply > > otherwise)... so, > > what exactly is the intention here? > > > > In general, section 8.1.2 is too restrictive -- > "mutual-authenticated > > WS- > > Communication will be required" is overly restrictive. And > this section > > includes this statement: "The Profile mandates that there be no > > anonymous > > communication. To ensure interoperability, only X.509 > certificate-based > > authentication is permitted by the Profile.") So, this > latter part in > > particular says that there is *NO PLACE* for password > authentication > > in OGSA. > > (I also believe that you have now outlawed MyProxy, right?) > > > > Am I reading something incorrectly? > > > > -- Marty > > > > Marty Humphrey > > Assistant Professor > > Department of Computer Science > > University of Virginia > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ > > > > > -- > > Take care: > > Dr. David Snelling < David . Snelling . UK . Fujitsu . com > > Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe > Hayes Park Central > Hayes End Road > Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE > > +44-208-606-4649 (Office) > +44-208-606-4539 (Fax) > +44-7768-807526 (Mobile) > >

1 0

Proposed agenda for July 18th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Jul '05

15 Jul '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on July 18th Monday from 5pm to 7pm (CDT). 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: 0718 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 http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20050713/en/1 Aug. F2F update (if any) Agenda bashing 2) OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 final review (30 min) > - Editing Actions: > 1. Takuya to update the document and put on gridforge as draft 25 > 2. Hiro to update table > 3. If anyone wants the pen talk to Hiro after that. Tom will bring his proposal on R0429. 3) Resource modeling discussion (20 min) > - Agreed that interested parties should discuss this offline, > followed by discussing it on the BES call this week, followed by > discussing it again in the OGSA call on July 18. > - This activity is part of the coordination between OGSA & > OGSA-BES WG 4) RNS spec review (60 min) > - Manuel will give a short (15-20 minutes) presentation of the > specification > - Purpose is for OGSA-WG to comment (since OGSA is going to be one > of the 'customers' of this spec) in preparation for the document's > submission RNS spec: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gfs-wg/document/RNS-Proposed_Final_Dra… 5) Wrap up AOB July 20 (Wed): OGSA-WG next step discussion, telecon schedule -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Proposed agenda for July 13th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 13 Jul '05

13 Jul '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on July 13th 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: 0713 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 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050711/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) August F2F meeting update (20 min) Byte-IO WG ask to move their session to be early in the week and early in the day, i.e. Monday or Tuesday morning. (See attached proposal) 3) Canonicalization proposal review (20 min) > - R0429: Tom to do canonicalization proposal. Then decide > whether to keep this compliance statement in the spec > or not. 4) OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 security session review (60 min) > - Section 8: Review postponed for next call since Frank is > still revising this section. Frank and Takuya will send out revised security section before the call. 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB July 18 (Mon): OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 final call, RNS spec review, resource modeling discussion July 20 (Wed): OGSA-WG next step discussion, telecon schedule RNS spec: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gfs-wg/document/RNS-Proposed_Final_Dra… ---- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1