- ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

New charter draft final call
by Hiro Kishimoto 17 Oct '05

17 Oct '05

Hi all, I've upload revised charter draft to GridForge. It covers all comments we got at the F2F review. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-WG-Charter-2005 I would make a final call for this draft. Please send any comments you may have on this. If there is no major one by Friday, I will ask our Area Director, Andrew Grimshaw, to bring it forward for GFSG approval. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 2

telecon schedule
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Oct '05

15 Oct '05

Hi all, Based on the F2F discussion, I've written up and attached OGSA-WG telecon schedule until January F2F. As usual, it is uploaded to the GridForge, too. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ Please give your comments or suggestions by email or at Monday call. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Proposed agenda for Oct. 17th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Oct '05

15 Oct '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Oct. 17th 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: 1017 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 (if available) WSRF RMD spec ownership info - Dan Jemiolo from ibm/wsdm tc is to take over ownership Agenda bashing 2) GGF15 and F2F meeting minutes approval (10 min if available) https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_i… 3) Management Developer Conference (10 min) MDC 2005 will be held from Dec. 5 to 8 at Santa Clara Marriott Hotel and GGF is one of their Organization Sponsors for this conference (http://www.mandevcon.com/index.html) We are asked to give OGSA introduction presentation on Wednesday Dec. 7. Audience is enterprise management hardware / software experts and may be new to Grid technology. Any volunteer? 4) Basic Security Profile discussion (60 min) Open issue discussion. Takuya will file all open issues to new GridForge trackers. https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… 5) Architecture & Glossary 1.5 discussion (30 min) Andreas and Jem will lead 6) Wrap-up AOB <NEXT CALL> Oct. 19 (Wed) EMS architecture, information model & CIM profile Oct. 24 (Mon) Basic Security Profile document review, Architecture & Glossary 1.5 (data section review) Oct. 26 (Wed) EMS architecture, information model & CIM profile Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Joining 1 hour late this evening (7PM ET)
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 12 Oct '05

12 Oct '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

Meeting notes from the CDDLM meeting, Wed 10/12/2006, at 6am PST
by Milojicic, Dejan S 12 Oct '05

12 Oct '05

Attendees: Keisuke Fukui, Jun Tatemura, Ayla De Souza, and Dejan Milojicic. Note taker: Dejan Milojicic > At the F2F meeting with OGSA, CDDLM had a couple of homework assignments. > > The first one was to sort out how does CDDLM interact with > ACS. We had some preliminary hallway discussions between > CDDLM people, Mike Behrens and Sachiko, but they suggested > that they would like to sync up with Keisuke prior to making > any decision. The options have been documented in a > presentation that Stuart prepared and gave at the F2F meeting > (either direct CDDLM-ACS interactions; through data services; > or through information services. I expect that someone from > ACS-WG can join us either tomorrow at our meeting or at some > other meeting in the near future. Keisuke presented the slides he posted earlier to the mailing list. Then we discussed which of the options of should work best for ACS, CDDLM, and other groups, such as CSG and RSS. The conclusion was that we do not need to be specific which information or services need to be combined. We defined interfaces for each services (ACS and CDDLM). As it is, the CDDLM and ACS relationship is appropriate. Options 1 and 2 does not make much difference (each spec doesn't explicitly specify I/F to be used for that). In a summary, we plan to leave the things as is, with the current specs on both sides unchanged. At the moment, they are closest to the option 2 (communication through data services). However, see also discussion below, which implies the interactions between ACS and CSG, even though it only relates to the data/information path between ACS and CSG and instead it is really about future services that CDDLM may offer. CSG interaction with ACS has not been discussed within ACS group, it is ambiguous and we believe that this was really the core of this whole controversy about the relationship between ACS, CDDLM, and CGS. It is about how CSG can obtain the information about the resource requirements and deployment time from the deployment descriptions, which is the topic of the next two items. > The second task item we had from the F2F was how can we help > provisioning services by providing an estimate of the deployment time. It is not possible, it could only be a hint. History is better source of this information. We could potentially, (from hints) resolve CDL by obtaining for each component the predicted deployment time, then from component graph calculate compound estimate (e.g. add times where components are serialized, return max where components are parallel, etc.). We will continue to explore these options. We do not plan to support this sort of functionality in the existing specs; we may want to support it in versions 2.0, or if it is urgently required, we can address it in a separate spec. This could be something called "Deployment Estimates Services" (DES). This will heavily depend on this information provided as a part of the CDL. These Deployment Estimates Services can also address the resource requirements, by having a similar run through the tree and adding up the resource required. . In addition to these offline services, we can provide the statistics about the run-time deployment time, by collecting time of the deployment of each component as well as overall time. These times can then be matched against the estimate times. Again, we do not plan to support this in the current versions of specs, but rather in the second versions or in separate specs. > The third task assignment was where do we stop in expanding > the tree (e.g. at the OS provisioning?) and how do we mark this. CDDLM (and CDL) are transparent to this. This is more matter of the policy and best practices. If further required, we can take this offline with Jay and come up with a proposal. > The last assignment was to see how we fit into Andrew > Grimshaw's view of provisioning. Andrew promised that he will > write-up a paragraph or so on his view and we will use that > to answer his concerns. We are still waiting for Andrew to provide one (or more) paragraph(s) description of how he sees deployment and we'll provide a feedback to his proposal how we match his expectations. > I expect to make progress on the first three topics tomorrow > morning PST (as well as the fourth if we receive Andrew's > paragraph in a timely fashion) and if we get some opportunity > we can present the outcome at the OGSA meeting tomorrow > afternoon (PST) or we can communicate the outcomes by email. We welcome an opportunity to go into more details on all these matters with the OGSA group. It is my understanding that we are not on the agenda for today. nor for the following meeting. Finally, we raised the issue of interoperability. It remains to be a major concern that the underlying specs that we depend on are not stable (WS-Addressing) or themselves do not have a full interoperability story in order for us to be able to demonstrate full degrees of interoperability. We expect feedback from Hiro on how IETF demonstrates interoperability so that we can best meet our target for interoperability demonstrations which is June 2006. Best regards, Dejan.

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSD L Binding
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 12 Oct '05

12 Oct '05

That may be true at the moment. But when the WS-Addressing - WSDL Binding spec is done (or shortly there after) that should not be true. Let me put it this way; if we have an EPR per protocol address we have failed miserably. I am sure you are not implying that the Naming architecture should be bounded by the current toolings limitations. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Mark Morgan [mailto:mmm2a@virginia.edu] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:57 PM To: Maguire, Tom; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com; David.Snelling(a)uk.fujitsu.com Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding My experience has been that available tooling (Microsoft and Java) doesn't support Address lines that aren't URLs. Am I wrong about this? -Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf > Of Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:49 PM > To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com; > David.Snelling(a)uk.fujitsu.com > Subject: [ogsa-wg] RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing > WSDL Binding > > > As promised at the F2F in Boston I have started a thread of discussion > on the subject line. I have reposted the thread to the this mailing > list > (ogsa-wg) in the hope that broader distribution will spur debate and > discussion. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maguire, Tom > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:51 PM > To: Maguire, Tom; David.Snelling(a)UK.Fujitsu.com > Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com > Subject: RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding > > Dave you mentioned in one of your question: > > >>It appears that in the example that either the was:Address and the > >>soap:address must be the same or that the wsa:Addess is irrelevant. > >> I can't really believe the former so let's assume the later. > > It's not that the wsa:adddress is irrelevant it is that the > wsa:address is logical as opposed to physical. This is precisely why > I think we can use it.... > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org > [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Maguire, Tom > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:35 AM > To: David.Snelling(a)UK.Fujitsu.com > Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com > Subject: RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding > > Dave, > > I'll do my best to answer your questions inline below. Let me caution > this thread a bit. The WSDL Binding specification is not complete and > is clearly still evolving... > > >>It appears that in the example that either the was:Address and the > soap:address must > >>be the same or that the wsa:Addess is irrelevant. I can't really > >>believe > the > >>former so let's assume the later. > > Yes, I believe that is the intent. As I mentioned in my note it is > 'interesting' that they are the same. My guess is that makes > implementations that are not <wsa:metadata> aware able to cope. I > would expect that would be a 'best practice'. > Not sure what the implications would be for us if that were the > case... > > >>With a wsdl11:definitions section present, the wsa:Address > field must > >>be > superseded > >>by the soap:address chosen by the client. I assume that the > >>soap:address gets copied to the was:To field in the soap header. > > Ultimately you are correct however I expect that the specification of > that > linkage would not be quite as explicit as that. > > >>There is no linkage in the wsdl11:definitions to connect the > >>wsa:Address > to it. > > No > > >>Q1) What happens with more than one wsdl11:definitions > section in the > >>was:Metadata? > > I have no idea what that would even mean. I presume they would limit > that in the spec. As I said it is still evolving. > > >>Q2) In this case can we put any old junk in the wsa:Address? > >>i.e. leave it out (except that the scheme saus [1..]. > > <wsa:address> is required and I would assume that at a minimum there > would be a statement of 'best practice' where the <wsa:address> is the > 'default' > address. > > >>Q3) If we use the wsa:Address as an Abstract Name, how do > we know that > >>is > what > >>we are doing? We could subtype the EPR to create a WS-Name > as we do > >>now, and bind the usage of the was:Address to type of the WS-Name. > > I would use a wsi conformance claim on both the wsdl and the EPR. The > wsdl claim would be that the service is capable of generating > WS-Names. The EPR claim would be that this EPR adheres to the > additional semantics of a WS-Name. > > >>Q4) I thought WS-Addressing was NOT about naming or identity. > >>How will this use (abuse) of the wsa:Address go down with > the W3C folks? > > I think this is a misread on your part W3C objected to identity being > encoded in something OTHER than a URI (IRI); in the WS-Addressing case > they objected to ReferenceProperties. Ultimately ReferenceProperties > were merged with ReferenceParameters which weakened (removed) the > identity semantic. I think they would be extremely happy with the use > of a URI as an identifier :-). > > > Tom > > > On 7 Oct 2005, at 12:41, Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com wrote: > > > This will be a fairly long note to discuss the current > incarnation of > > WS-Naming Abstract Names. An Abstract Name has the following > > properties: > > > > * The name MUST be globally unique in both space and time. > > * The name conforms to URI syntax ("Uniform Resource Identifiers > > (IRI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3987). > > > > Let's leave aside the first point, for the time being, and focus on > > the second point. The abstract name is an IRI which is an > > internationalized URI. Currently this means that a WS-Name > abstract > > name would look like > > this: > > > > <wsa:EndpointReference > > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing" > > xmlns:name="http://ggf.org/name"> > > <wsa:Address>http://tempuri.org/example</wsa:Address> > > > > <name:AbstractName>urn:guid:B94C4186-0923-4dbb-AD9C-39DFB8B54388</ > > name:Abstr > > actName> > > </wsa:EndpointReference> > > > > There are several built in assumptions in this particular > rendering of > > an > > abstract name. First, there is an assumption that the > <wsa:Address> > > is the > > [destination] MAP of the EPR. Second, the AbstractName > does not need > > to flow on the wire when 'dereferencing' this EPR. > > > > It may be ok for the AbstractName to not flow on the wire. I will > > leave that discussion to others. Let's focus on the first > > assumption... > > If you assume that the <wsa:Address> is NOT necessarily a physical > > address > > (URL) then it is essentially the same as an AbstractName minus the > > "MUST be globally unique in both space and time" property described > > above. > > > > This is essentially how 'Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL > Binding' > > defines > > a <wsa:Address>. An example from that specfication: > > > > <wsa:EndpointReference > > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing"> > > <wsa:Address>http://example.com/fabrikam/acct</wsa:Address> > > <wsa:Metadata> > > <wsdl11:definitions > targetNamespace="http://example.com/fabrikam" > > xmlns:fabrikam="http://example.com/fabrikam" > > xmlns:abc="http://www.abccorp.com/" > > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" > > xmlns:iiop="http://www.iiop.org/" > > xmlns:wsdl11="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"> > > <wsdl11:import namespace="http://example.com/fabrikam" > > location="http://example.com/fabrikam/fabrikam.wsdl"/> > > <wsdl11:import namespace="http://www.abccorp.com/" > > location="http://www.abccorp.com/abc.wsdl"/> > > <wsdl11:service name="InventoryService"> > > <wsdl11:port name="ep1" binding="abc:soap-http-binding"> > > <soap:address > location="http://example.com/fabrikam/acct"/> > > </wsdl11:port> > > <wsdl11:port name="ep2" binding="abc:iiop"> > > <iiop:address location="..."/> > > </wsdl11:port> > > </wsdl11:service> > > </wsdl11:definitions> > > </wsa:Metadata> > > </wsd:EndpointReference> > > > > And also from 'Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding' > > > > In particular, embedding a WSDL service component > description MAY be > > > used by EPR issuers to indicate the presence of alternative > addresses > > and protocol bindings to access the referenced endpoint. The > > alternatives are provided by the different endpoints of the > embedded > > service. > > > > It is interesting to note that in the above example that the > > <wsa:address> matches the soap:address location. > > So this says to me that the <wsa:address> is essentially equivalent > > (or at least could be) to an abstract name. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > > 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) >

4 6

Proposed agenda for Oct. 12th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 12 Oct '05

12 Oct '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Oct. 12th 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: 1012 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (if available) Agenda bashing 2) GGF15 and F2F evaluation (20 min) Upsides and downsides Minutes approval (if available) Meeting materials are uploaded to GridForge https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_i… 3) EMS architecture discussion (30 min) "EMS Architecture Composition Roadmap" by Steven https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/proposed-ems-roadmap Draft sequence diagram #1 (2.1) and #2 (2.2) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF15-EMS-Sequence-di… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF15-EMS-Sequence-di… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF15-EMS-Sequence-di… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF15-EMS-Sequence-di… 4) information model discussion (30 min if available) BES container profile 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB <NEXT CALL> Oct. 17 (Mon) Basic Security Profile, Architecture & glossary 1.5 Oct. 19 (Wed) EMS architecture, information model -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

CDDLM meeting tomorrow, Wed 10/12/2006, at 6am PST
by Milojicic, Dejan S 12 Oct '05

12 Oct '05

Hi, At the F2F meeting with OGSA, CDDLM had a couple of homework assignments. The first one was to sort out how does CDDLM interact with ACS. We had some preliminary hallway discussions between CDDLM people, Mike Behrens and Sachiko, but they suggested that they would like to sync up with Keisuke prior to making any decision. The options have been documented in a presentation that Stuart prepared and gave at the F2F meeting (either direct CDDLM-ACS interactions; through data services; or through information services. I expect that someone from ACS-WG can join us either tomorrow at our meeting or at some other meeting in the near future. The second task item we had from the F2F was how can we help provisioning services by providing an estimate of the deployment time. The third task assignment was where do we stop in expanding the tree (e.g. at the OS provisioning?) and how do we mark this. The last assignment was to see how we fit into Andrew Grimshaw's view of provisioning. Andrew promised that he will write-up a paragraph or so on his view and we will use that to answer his concerns. I expect to make progress on the first three topics tomorrow morning PST (as well as the fourth if we receive Andrew's paragraph in a timely fashion) and if we get some opportunity we can present the outcome at the OGSA meeting tomorrow afternoon (PST) or we can communicate the outcomes by email. As usual, we shall use the following conference number: +1 866-639-4732 (toll free while in US) Code 2362906 (followed by a '#' sign) +1 574-948-0379 (toll & international) Thanks, Dejan.

2 1

RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 11 Oct '05

11 Oct '05

Frank, I do not disagree that if profile the <wsa:address> as an abstract name then it must have the properties of an abstract name (whatever they may be). Further I would assume the we would have claims on the WSDL that it returns abstract name profiled EPRs. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Frank Siebenlist [mailto:franks@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:58 PM To: Maguire, Tom Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com; David.Snelling(a)uk.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding I'd like to go back to the start of your discussion and talk about the required properties of the Address. The assumptions for the AbstractName are: * The name MUST be globally unique in both space and time. * The name conforms to URI syntax ("Uniform Resource Identifiers (IRI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3987). I believe that we need more assumptions on the binding properties itself, and an example may help. Suppose we have: <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing" xmlns:name="http://ggf.org/name"> <wsa:Address> http://tempuri.org/example?Id=3 </wsa:Address> <name:AbstractName> urn:guid:B94C4186-0923-4dbb-AD9C-39DFB8B54388 </name:AbstractName> </wsa:EndpointReference> As you can see, we have an AbstractName that clearly looks unique in space and time, and an Address that seems to have a service/resource identifier (Id=3) that doesn't look that strong. Now suppose that this service application is implemented such that after the hosting environment is recycled/restarted, the following EPR is valid: <wsa:EndpointReference> <wsa:Address> http://tempuri.org/example?Id=4 </wsa:Address> <name:AbstractName> urn:guid:B94C4186-0923-4dbb-AD9C-39DFB8B54388 </name:AbstractName> </wsa:EndpointReference> (I've removed the name space identifiers for clarity) As you can see, the implementation has assigned a different Address to the same AbstractName, and we can guess that the Id=4 is the changed distinguishing parameter value used for dispatching to the same service/resource. Now suppose that this same implementation will reuse the previous Id=3 for a different service/resource, like: <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing" xmlns:name="http://ggf.org/name"> <wsa:Address> http://tempuri.org/example?Id=3 </wsa:Address> <name:AbstractName> urn:guid:B94C4186-0923-4dbb-AD9C-39DFB8B77777 </name:AbstractName> </wsa:EndpointReference> So now the service implementation has reused the old Address with Id=3 for a new, different service/resource that is uniquely identified with a new guid that ends with 77777 instead of 54388: we have two different AbstractNames for two different services/resources that are bound to the same Address, which could cause some confusion... One could claim that this is a "bad" implementation and that the EPR-minter should *ensure* that this should not happen. However, this application could work perfectly correct for the things that it's supposed to do, and it is the mismatch in assumptions that causes the problem. I believe that if we have a strong uniqueness claim for the AbstractName, then the binding to an Address is only meaningful if that Address (or the binding) has an equivalent strong uniqueness property. In other words, the binding of the AbstractName that is "globally unique in both space and time" to an Address, only makes sense if that Address has the exact same property. Now the only one that can ensure that the Address is also "globally unique in both space and time", is the implementation, i.e. the EPR-minter, and those implementations that could be identified through a profile for EPR-minters: the globally-unique-Address-in-both-space-and-time EPR profile. So, binding a "globally unique in both space and time" AbstractName would only make sense if one is assured that the implementation conforms to the globally-unique-Address-in-both-space-and-time EPR profile. One could relax this requirement a little by considering the complete binding instead of the Address only, and we could for example consider a validity time-interval and a binding issuer. This would allow you to localize the uniqueness requirement of the Address to the time-interval or/and issuer. But so far we have punted the idea of dealing with an EPR as a true assertion, which leaves us only the Address to play with. Summary: I believe that the "globally unique in both space and time" requirement for the AbstractName MUST hold true also for the Address to which it is bound, and that EPRs with such an Address constitute a globally-unique-Address-in-both-space-and-time EPR-minter profile. One can only bind AbstractNames to EPRs that adhere to the globally-unique-Address-in-both-space-and-time EPR-minter profile. Note that if this all holds, then the Address of an EPR that conforms to the globally-unique-Address-in-both-space-and-time profile, could also be used as an AbstractName, which would be great as it would give us an identifier that we could use to bind (authorization-) policy to and as a side-benefit would also be available on the wire. Regards, Frank. Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com wrote: > > As promised at the F2F in Boston I have started a thread of discussion > on the subject line. I have reposted the thread to the this mailing > list > (ogsa-wg) in the hope that broader distribution will spur debate and > discussion. > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maguire, Tom > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:51 PM > To: Maguire, Tom; David.Snelling(a)UK.Fujitsu.com > Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com > Subject: RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding > > Dave you mentioned in one of your question: > > >>> It appears that in the example that either the was:Address and the >>> soap:address must be the same or that the wsa:Addess is irrelevant. >>> I can't really believe the former so let's assume the later. >>> > > It's not that the wsa:adddress is irrelevant it is that the > wsa:address is logical as opposed to physical. This is precisely why > I think we can use it.... > > Tom > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org > [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Maguire, Tom > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:35 AM > To: David.Snelling(a)UK.Fujitsu.com > Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com > Subject: RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding > > Dave, > > I'll do my best to answer your questions inline below. Let me caution > this thread a bit. The WSDL Binding specification is not complete and > is clearly still evolving... > > >>> It appears that in the example that either the was:Address and the >>> > soap:address must > >>> be the same or that the wsa:Addess is irrelevant. I can't really >>> believe >>> > the > >>> former so let's assume the later. >>> > > Yes, I believe that is the intent. As I mentioned in my note it is > 'interesting' that they are the same. My guess is that makes > implementations that are not <wsa:metadata> aware able to cope. I > would expect that would be a 'best practice'. Not sure what the > implications would be for us if that were the case... > > >>> With a wsdl11:definitions section present, the wsa:Address field >>> must be >>> > superseded > >>> by the soap:address chosen by the client. I assume that the >>> soap:address gets copied to the was:To field in the soap header. >>> > > Ultimately you are correct however I expect that the specification of that > linkage would not be quite as explicit as that. > > >>> There is no linkage in the wsdl11:definitions to connect the >>> wsa:Address >>> > to it. > > No > > >>> Q1) What happens with more than one wsdl11:definitions section in >>> the was:Metadata? >>> > > I have no idea what that would even mean. I presume they would limit > that in the spec. As I said it is still evolving. > > >>> Q2) In this case can we put any old junk in the wsa:Address? >>> i.e. leave it out (except that the scheme saus [1..]. >>> > > <wsa:address> is required and I would assume that at a minimum there > would be a statement of 'best practice' where the <wsa:address> is the 'default' > address. > > >>> Q3) If we use the wsa:Address as an Abstract Name, how do we know >>> that is >>> > what > >>> we are doing? We could subtype the EPR to create a WS-Name as we do >>> now, and bind the usage of the was:Address to type of the WS-Name. >>> > > I would use a wsi conformance claim on both the wsdl and the EPR. The > wsdl claim would be that the service is capable of generating > WS-Names. The EPR claim would be that this EPR adheres to the > additional semantics of a WS-Name. > > >>> Q4) I thought WS-Addressing was NOT about naming or identity. >>> How will this use (abuse) of the wsa:Address go down with the W3C folks? >>> > > I think this is a misread on your part W3C objected to identity being > encoded in something OTHER than a URI (IRI); in the WS-Addressing case > they objected to ReferenceProperties. Ultimately ReferenceProperties > were merged with ReferenceParameters which weakened (removed) the > identity semantic. I think they would be extremely happy with the use > of a URI as an identifier :-). > > > Tom > > > On 7 Oct 2005, at 12:41, Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com wrote: > > >> This will be a fairly long note to discuss the current incarnation of >> WS-Naming Abstract Names. An Abstract Name has the following >> properties: >> >> * The name MUST be globally unique in both space and time. >> * The name conforms to URI syntax ("Uniform Resource Identifiers >> (IRI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3987). >> >> Let's leave aside the first point, for the time being, and focus on >> the second point. The abstract name is an IRI which is an >> internationalized URI. Currently this means that a WS-Name abstract >> name would look like >> this: >> >> <wsa:EndpointReference >> xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing" >> xmlns:name="http://ggf.org/name"> >> <wsa:Address>http://tempuri.org/example</wsa:Address> >> >> <name:AbstractName>urn:guid:B94C4186-0923-4dbb-AD9C-39DFB8B54388</ >> name:Abstr >> actName> >> </wsa:EndpointReference> >> >> There are several built in assumptions in this particular rendering >> of an >> abstract name. First, there is an assumption that the <wsa:Address> >> is the >> [destination] MAP of the EPR. Second, the AbstractName does not need >> to flow on the wire when 'dereferencing' this EPR. >> >> It may be ok for the AbstractName to not flow on the wire. I will >> leave that discussion to others. Let's focus on the first >> assumption... >> If you assume that the <wsa:Address> is NOT necessarily a physical >> address >> (URL) then it is essentially the same as an AbstractName minus the >> "MUST be globally unique in both space and time" property described >> above. >> >> This is essentially how 'Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding' >> defines >> a <wsa:Address>. An example from that specfication: >> >> <wsa:EndpointReference >> xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing"> >> <wsa:Address>http://example.com/fabrikam/acct</wsa:Address> >> <wsa:Metadata> >> <wsdl11:definitions targetNamespace="http://example.com/fabrikam" >> xmlns:fabrikam="http://example.com/fabrikam" >> xmlns:abc="http://www.abccorp.com/" >> xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" >> xmlns:iiop="http://www.iiop.org/" >> xmlns:wsdl11="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"> >> <wsdl11:import namespace="http://example.com/fabrikam" >> location="http://example.com/fabrikam/fabrikam.wsdl"/> >> <wsdl11:import namespace="http://www.abccorp.com/" >> location="http://www.abccorp.com/abc.wsdl"/> >> <wsdl11:service name="InventoryService"> >> <wsdl11:port name="ep1" binding="abc:soap-http-binding"> >> <soap:address location="http://example.com/fabrikam/acct"/> >> </wsdl11:port> >> <wsdl11:port name="ep2" binding="abc:iiop"> >> <iiop:address location="..."/> >> </wsdl11:port> >> </wsdl11:service> >> </wsdl11:definitions> >> </wsa:Metadata> >> </wsd:EndpointReference> >> >> And also from 'Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding' >> >> In particular, embedding a WSDL service component description MAY be >> > > >> used by EPR issuers to indicate the presence of alternative addresses >> and protocol bindings to access the referenced endpoint. The >> alternatives are provided by the different endpoints of the embedded >> service. >> >> It is interesting to note that in the above example that the >> <wsa:address> matches the soap:address location. >> So this says to me that the <wsa:address> is essentially equivalent >> (or at least could be) to an abstract name. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> -- Frank Siebenlist franks(a)mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory

1 0

RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 11 Oct '05

11 Oct '05

Pardon my english s/the thread to the/this thread to /g -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Maguire, Tom Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:49 PM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com; David.Snelling(a)uk.fujitsu.com Subject: RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding As promised at the F2F in Boston I have started a thread of discussion on the subject line. I have reposted the thread to the this mailing list (ogsa-wg) in the hope that broader distribution will spur debate and discussion. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Maguire, Tom Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:51 PM To: Maguire, Tom; David.Snelling(a)UK.Fujitsu.com Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com Subject: RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding Dave you mentioned in one of your question: >>It appears that in the example that either the was:Address and the >>soap:address must be the same or that the wsa:Addess is irrelevant. >> I can't really believe the former so let's assume the later. It's not that the wsa:adddress is irrelevant it is that the wsa:address is logical as opposed to physical. This is precisely why I think we can use it.... Tom -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Maguire, Tom Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:35 AM To: David.Snelling(a)UK.Fujitsu.com Cc: ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; tuecke(a)univa.com Subject: RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] WS-Names and WS-Addressing WSDL Binding Dave, I'll do my best to answer your questions inline below. Let me caution this thread a bit. The WSDL Binding specification is not complete and is clearly still evolving... >>It appears that in the example that either the was:Address and the soap:address must >>be the same or that the wsa:Addess is irrelevant. I can't really >>believe the >>former so let's assume the later. Yes, I believe that is the intent. As I mentioned in my note it is 'interesting' that they are the same. My guess is that makes implementations that are not <wsa:metadata> aware able to cope. I would expect that would be a 'best practice'. Not sure what the implications would be for us if that were the case... >>With a wsdl11:definitions section present, the wsa:Address field must >>be superseded >>by the soap:address chosen by the client. I assume that the >>soap:address gets copied to the was:To field in the soap header. Ultimately you are correct however I expect that the specification of that linkage would not be quite as explicit as that. >>There is no linkage in the wsdl11:definitions to connect the >>wsa:Address to it. No >>Q1) What happens with more than one wsdl11:definitions section in the >>was:Metadata? I have no idea what that would even mean. I presume they would limit that in the spec. As I said it is still evolving. >>Q2) In this case can we put any old junk in the wsa:Address? >>i.e. leave it out (except that the scheme saus [1..]. <wsa:address> is required and I would assume that at a minimum there would be a statement of 'best practice' where the <wsa:address> is the 'default' address. >>Q3) If we use the wsa:Address as an Abstract Name, how do we know that >>is what >>we are doing? We could subtype the EPR to create a WS-Name as we do >>now, and bind the usage of the was:Address to type of the WS-Name. I would use a wsi conformance claim on both the wsdl and the EPR. The wsdl claim would be that the service is capable of generating WS-Names. The EPR claim would be that this EPR adheres to the additional semantics of a WS-Name. >>Q4) I thought WS-Addressing was NOT about naming or identity. >>How will this use (abuse) of the wsa:Address go down with the W3C folks? I think this is a misread on your part W3C objected to identity being encoded in something OTHER than a URI (IRI); in the WS-Addressing case they objected to ReferenceProperties. Ultimately ReferenceProperties were merged with ReferenceParameters which weakened (removed) the identity semantic. I think they would be extremely happy with the use of a URI as an identifier :-). Tom On 7 Oct 2005, at 12:41, Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com wrote: > This will be a fairly long note to discuss the current incarnation of > WS-Naming Abstract Names. An Abstract Name has the following > properties: > > * The name MUST be globally unique in both space and time. > * The name conforms to URI syntax ("Uniform Resource Identifiers > (IRI): Generic Syntax", RFC 3987). > > Let's leave aside the first point, for the time being, and focus on > the second point. The abstract name is an IRI which is an > internationalized URI. Currently this means that a WS-Name abstract > name would look like > this: > > <wsa:EndpointReference > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing" > xmlns:name="http://ggf.org/name"> > <wsa:Address>http://tempuri.org/example</wsa:Address> > > <name:AbstractName>urn:guid:B94C4186-0923-4dbb-AD9C-39DFB8B54388</ > name:Abstr > actName> > </wsa:EndpointReference> > > There are several built in assumptions in this particular rendering of > an > abstract name. First, there is an assumption that the <wsa:Address> > is the > [destination] MAP of the EPR. Second, the AbstractName does not need > to flow on the wire when 'dereferencing' this EPR. > > It may be ok for the AbstractName to not flow on the wire. I will > leave that discussion to others. Let's focus on the first > assumption... > If you assume that the <wsa:Address> is NOT necessarily a physical > address > (URL) then it is essentially the same as an AbstractName minus the > "MUST be globally unique in both space and time" property described > above. > > This is essentially how 'Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding' > defines > a <wsa:Address>. An example from that specfication: > > <wsa:EndpointReference > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing"> > <wsa:Address>http://example.com/fabrikam/acct</wsa:Address> > <wsa:Metadata> > <wsdl11:definitions targetNamespace="http://example.com/fabrikam" > xmlns:fabrikam="http://example.com/fabrikam" > xmlns:abc="http://www.abccorp.com/" > xmlns:soap="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/" > xmlns:iiop="http://www.iiop.org/" > xmlns:wsdl11="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/"> > <wsdl11:import namespace="http://example.com/fabrikam" > location="http://example.com/fabrikam/fabrikam.wsdl"/> > <wsdl11:import namespace="http://www.abccorp.com/" > location="http://www.abccorp.com/abc.wsdl"/> > <wsdl11:service name="InventoryService"> > <wsdl11:port name="ep1" binding="abc:soap-http-binding"> > <soap:address location="http://example.com/fabrikam/acct"/> > </wsdl11:port> > <wsdl11:port name="ep2" binding="abc:iiop"> > <iiop:address location="..."/> > </wsdl11:port> > </wsdl11:service> > </wsdl11:definitions> > </wsa:Metadata> > </wsd:EndpointReference> > > And also from 'Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding' > > In particular, embedding a WSDL service component description MAY be > used by EPR issuers to indicate the presence of alternative addresses > and protocol bindings to access the referenced endpoint. The > alternatives are provided by the different endpoints of the embedded > service. > > It is interesting to note that in the above example that the > <wsa:address> matches the soap:address location. > So this says to me that the <wsa:address> is essentially equivalent > (or at least could be) to an abstract name. > > Thoughts? > > > 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 > > -- 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

NO CALL on Monday
by Hiro Kishimoto 09 Oct '05

09 Oct '05

Hi all, Thank you very much for all of you who came to GGF15 and F2F meeting. We had very lively and productive meetings in Boston. Since 10th is holiday in US and Japan, we have NO call on Monday. Our next call is on Wednesday Oct. 12th. Thanks again and enjoy your holiday, ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

CFP: SOBPI'05 - Workshop on Service-Oriented Business Process Integration
by gagnon＠soa7.com 06 Oct '05

06 Oct '05

*********************************************************************** SOBPI'05 - Workshop on Service-Oriented Business Process Integration Apologies for cross-posting *********************************************************************** CALL FOR PAPERS International Workshop on SERVICE-ORIENTED BUSINESS PROCESSES INTEGRATION (SOBPI'05) http://elab.njit.edu/sobpi Held in conjunction with the 3rd International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2005) December 12, 2005 Amsterdam, the Netherlands http://www.icsoc.org *********************************************************************** --- IMPORTANT DATES --- Papers submission >>> Extended to October, 14, 2005 (was Sept.30, 2005) Notification >>> Extended to October 31, 2005 (was Oct.21, 2005) Camera ready >>> November 11, 2005 Workshop >>> December 12, 2005 --- MOTIVATIONS --- A widely recognized trend in business and markets is the push towards the idea of companies and enterprises as networked organizations, which can gain profit from collaborations in the net, improving their flexibility, and reducing operational costs. This transformation requires the adoption of more collaborative working practices based on the integration of business processes within a wide community of business partners, suppliers, vendors, and public bodies. In parallel to this trend, service oriented technologies are transforming the web from an infrastructure for sharing information to a place where the networked organizations can meet to integrate their business interests. Service Oriented Computing (SOC) is currently the most promising technology supporting the development and execution of business processes that are distributed among the most disparate entities, both within an organization and across organizational borders. However, a practical industry-wide adoption of web services, to support the collaboration among networked organizations and the integration of their business process, is still an open challenge. This challenge can be addressed only by a tight integration of service-oriented development within new business models and new ways of management that are able to exploit new technological solutions. Moreover, web service technology is still emerging, and therefore their industry-wide adoption requires to inject research results within real industry practices, but, even more important, to drive research activities and roadmaps according to industrial needs. The aim of this workshop is to bring together researchers, practitioners, and experts in business models and management and to promote cross-fertilization among their competencies, focusing on the usage of service oriented technologies to support the Business Processes Integration (BPI). The goal is to build bridges and convergences among the complementary views of experts in IT and service oriented technologies and experts in management, and the different approaches of academy and industry, to the problem of business processes integration. The emphasis of the workshop will be on the demonstration of the practical application of research results, and on the description of industrial case studies. --- FOCUS --- The workshop will seek contributions in the field of SOC for BPI. Papers can take the form of detailed case studies, technical white papers, new methodologies, new standard specifications, benchmarking models, or any other contributions demonstrating innovative applications of SOC for BPI. Topics may include, but are not limited to: 1. Development Methodologies and Tools: a. Service/Process Modeling, Deployment, and Testing b. Enterprise Architecture and Service/Process Definition c. Model Driven Architecture and Service/Process Reuse d. Process-Oriented Messaging Infrastructures e. Distributed Business Process Management 2. Adoption of Advanced Technologies: a. Intelligent Process Discovery and Integration b. Service/Process Composition c. Event Driven Architecture and Process Automation d. Integration of Services, Messaging, and Connectors e. Business Activity Monitoring and Quality of Service 3. Comparison of Implementation Platforms: a. Business Process Management b. Enterprise Service Bus c. Business Services Networks --- EVENT FORMAT --- The workshop will be highly interactive, and commentators will be exploited foster the discussion among participants with different backgrounds: each presentation will be followed by a short presentation of comments from a participant belonging to different areas of expertise, in order to bridge the ideas of the paper with a different viewpoint (e.g., each presentation on IT solutions will be followed by comments from industry experts and, vice-versa, presentations on case studies will be followed by comments on the research and technological challenges). --- PUBLICATIONS --- Proceedings will be published on the web while organizers make arrangements for both print and digital publication with a major publisher. In addition, best papers will be submitted for consideration as part of the Special Issue on Business Process Management: from Engineering to Execution, Guest Edi-tor: Prof. Angel Ortiz, Polytechnic niversity of Valencia, Spain, International Journal of Information Technology and Management (IJITM), http://www.inderscience.com/browse/callpaper.php?callID=255 --- IMPORTANT DATES --- Papers submission >>> Extended to October, 14, 2005 (was Sept.30, 2005) Notification >>> Extended to October 31, 2005 (was Oct.21, 2005) Camera ready >>> November 11, 2005 Workshop >>> December 12, 2005 --- SUBMISSIONS --- Authors are invited to submit original, previously unpublished contributions. Papers should be written in English using Springer's LNCS style (http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html) and must not exceed 15 pages. Shorter papers, presenting preliminary results, are welcome. Please submit papers electronically, using the workshop Web site, at http://elab.njit.edu/sobpisubmit. --- REGISTRATION --- For accepted submissions, at least one author must register for the workshop in order for the paper to appear in the proceedings and to be scheduled in the workshop pro-gram. Please register for the workshop at the ICSOC conference website (http://www.icsoc.org) before November 5, 2005. --- CONTACT INFORMATION --- Please direct all inquiries to <sobpi(a)dit.unitn.it>. --- CO-CHAIRS --- * Stephane Gagnon, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA * Heiko Ludwig, IBM Watson Research Center, USA * Marco Pistore, Univeristy of Trento, Italy * Wasim Sadiq, SAP Research Brisbane, Australia --- PROGRAM COMMITTEE --- * Morad Benyoucef, University of Ottawa, Canada * Antonio Brogi, University of Pisa, Italy * Jen-Yao Chung, IBM Watson Lab, USA * Marlon Dumas, Queensland University of Technology, Australia * Schahram Dustdar, Vienna University of Technology, Austria * Elena Ferrari, University of Insubria at Como, Italy * Oleg Gusikhin, Ford Research & Advanced Engineering, USA * Patrick Hung, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada * Anup Kumar, University of Louisville, USA * Angel Ortiz, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain * Katia Passerini, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA * Pascal Pecquet, University of Montpellier 1, France * Manfred Reichert, University of Twente, The Netherlands * Colette Rolland, University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, France * Richard Soley, Object Management Group, USA * Cheickna Sylla, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA * Vladimir Tosic, Lakehead University, Canada * Hannes Werthner, University of Innsbruck & EC3 Vienna, Austria * Andreas Wombacher, University of Twente, The Netherlands * Dan Zhang, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada * Jia Zhang, Northern Illinois University, USA * Aoying Zhou, Fudan University, China

1 0

F2F EMS session material
by Hiro Kishimoto 05 Oct '05

05 Oct '05

Hi all, Based on the OGSA-WG EMS discussion and RSS-WG discussion. I've written up EMS session material (proposal) for EMS sessions Thursday morning. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF15-F2F-EMS-draft/ Please have a look and let's review it at agenda bashing tomorrow. Thanks -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Draft new charter document (new draft uploaded)
by Treadwell, Jem 05 Oct '05

05 Oct '05

Hi, at Hiro's request I took an editing pass at the document, and uploaded a new version. Version 2 includes all the markup, but for easier reviewing I accepted all the changes, added a draft date and uploaded the result as v3. The current draft (v3) is at: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-WG-new-charte r-draft/en/3 - Jem > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:08 AM > To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-wg] Draft new charter document > > Hi all, > > Based on the August F2F meeting discussion, I wrote up new > charter draft and upload it to GridForge. > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-WG- > new-charter-draft > > Please have a look in advance, we will review it at F2F > meeting on Thursday 5-6pm. > > Thanks, > -- > Hiro Kishimoto > >

1 0

Draft new charter document
by Hiro Kishimoto 04 Oct '05

04 Oct '05

Hi all, Based on the August F2F meeting discussion, I wrote up new charter draft and upload it to GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-WG-new-charter-d… Please have a look in advance, we will review it at F2F meeting on Thursday 5-6pm. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Dial-in info for OGSA-WG session #2
by Hiro Kishimoto 03 Oct '05

03 Oct '05

Hi all, Dial-in information for GGF15 OGSA-WG session #2: Toll number: +1 718 3541071 (New York) +1 408 9616509 (San Jose) The pass code: 4371991 Screen share service MAY be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 1003 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html > OGSA EMS architecture > (OGSA-WG) Group Discussion > 4-5:30pm (EDT), Monday > > This is working session to discuss high level OGSA EMS architecture among fellow WGs, including OGSA-BES, OGSA-RSS, JSDL, GRAAP, CDDLM, ACS, and etc. By means of a couple of scenarios walk through, we will explore interactions between these services. > > Agenda: > Scenario walk through > - BLAST application > - 3-tier application > - Consolidation services > > > Location: Stuart Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA-WG GGF15 sessions
by Hiro Kishimoto 01 Oct '05

01 Oct '05

Hi all, At this Wednesday call, OGSA-WG agreed to add one more presentation "OGSA on WS-Management et. al." by Glenn Wasson, University of Virginia. Then, agenda for our outreach session is now the following; "This is an outreach session to give the status and future direction of OGSA-WG activities. EMS architecture development and information model/data model of Grid resource pilot project will be introduced. WS-management in OGSA is also proposed." Agenda: 1. OGSA status update and Future plan -- Working documents update, EMS architecture work and OGSA-WG future plan 2. Modeling Grid resources in OGSA -- Information model and data model work including CIM profile for Grid resources in OGSA. 3. OGSA on WS-Management et. al. -- This presentation will discuss building OGSA services using the WS-Management specification. See you all in Boston, have a safe trip. -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

First OGSA-WG session room change
by Hiro Kishimoto 01 Oct '05

01 Oct '05

Hi all, The first OGSA-WG session (outreach presentation) will be held at Imperial Ballroom (same as where the opening/keynote will be) instead of Berkeley/Clarendon room. The day and time for the session is the same; Monday morning at 11:00am. Unfortunately the printed conference materials does not have this information, but the on-line schedule is already updated and also there will be signs directing attendees appropriately on-site. see: http://www.ggf.org/gf/group_schedule/ Agenda: 1. OGSA status update and Future plan 2. Modeling Grid resources in OGSA 3. OGSA on WS-Management et. al. Have a good trip and see you on Monday. -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Two comment tracker URLs (Re: [OGSA-AUTHZ] joint teleconference session with OGSA-WG)
by Hiro Kishimoto 29 Sep '05

29 Sep '05

Hi Mary, The followings are comment tracker URLs I mentioned during joint call. Both are publically accessable and you can post your response. (1) Formal Public Comment Tracker https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=553 Hidemoto's comment is on this tracker and you can reply each comment. (2) Internal Editor Tracker https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1485 You can find pre-public comment period comments here. But you cannot reply comment by comment here. Hope it helps, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Mary Thompson wrote: > I have uploaded a revised version of the"Attributes used in OGSI > Authorization" paper to the public comment area > https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1485. > > It reflects Hiro's comments and a change of focus from OGSA to OGSI, > plus some cleaning up of namespace references and references in general. > > > Takuya Mori wrote: > > >>>> >>>> So, I'm now arranging to have the call on Wed. Sep. 28th. >>>> Could you tell me your availability on the Wednesday? >>>> >

1 0

CDDLM meetings at GGF
by Milojicic, Dejan S 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

Hi OGSA team members, At one of the OGSA meetings, I promised that I will post the CDDLM schedule at GGF. I suggested that it might be useful if OGSA members attend some of these sessions, so that we can more effectively spend the F2F on Thursday. While there is an overlap between OGSA and CDDLM for the first meeting on Monday, I recommend attending the two subsequent sessions: on Monday at 2pm where there will be 4 demos presented; and at 6pm where we will discuss integration with other specs as well as go over component model details. See more detailed schedule below. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meeting today, but I am sure that Stuart, Jun, and Ayla will represent the CDDLM in the best possible way. Thanks, Dejan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- 11:00 am - 12:30 pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- CDDLM testing reference implementations, interoperability (CDDLM-WG) Group Discussion In this session, we shall discuss progress with reference implementations, and in particular the testing. Thereafter we shall also discuss the interoperability. Agenda: 1. Progress with reference implementations 2. Update on individual testing 3. Update on cross testing 4. Discussion on interoperability Location: Whitter ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- 2:00 pm - 3:30 pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- CDDLM, demonstration of reference implementations (CDDLM-WG) Group Discussion At this session we shall have four demos of the reference implementations in progress Agenda: 1. HP demo 2. NEC demo 3. Softricity demo 4. UFCG demo Location: Berkeley/Clarendon ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- 6:00 pm - 7:30 pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- CDDLM, integration with other specs (CDDLM-WG) Group Discussion At this session we shall discuss how to integrate our work with other specs and with other groups Agenda: 1. Integration with JSDL 2. Integration with ACS 3. Discussions on EMS 4. Integration with DRMAA 5. Integration with GRAAP Location: White Hill

1 0

Proposed agenda for Sept. 28th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Sept. 28th 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: 0928 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 (if available) Agenda bashing 2) OGSA-AuthZ WG joint session (30 min) - Reviewing the changes for the "Use of SAML for OGSI Authorization" and related discussion https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/download.php?group_id=90&atid=414&file_… - Reviewing the changes for the "Attributes used in OGSI Authorization" and related discussion https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/download.php?group_id=90&atid=414&file_… - Reviewing the draft charter of the OGSA-Authz-WG https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-authz/document/proposed-ogsa-auth… - Fine-grain authorization delegation > From Aug. 15 F2F minutes; >  Questions on relationship between authorization levels and how to bridge between the two. Takuya: native mechanism can provide finer authorization. > • Tom: OGSA delegates authorization to resource’s mechanism? Andrew: Legion had similar scheme. Discussion of technical details. Frank: have to pass to database all the information. Allen: should not preclude this. > • Ravi: possible to abstract it, since we will have to deal with different kinds of resources (telescopes, etc.) later? Tom: question is architectural extensibility. Discussion on existing alternatives. > • Out of time, continue discussion in OGSA-WG teleconferences. 3) Basic Security Profiles review (30 min) Takuya to make necessary revisions, incorporate Jem's edits, and send out to the list before the call. > from Sept. 19 call minutes; > - Discussed how likely it is that both TLS and MLS are going to > be implemented by the same service. It was noted that GT > implements both. > - Agreed that the decision on what to require should be based > on industry requirements as well as the requirements of > other projects. > - Agreed to try and get some feedback from companies/projects > by next week Wed. > - Hiro and Andreas pointed out that they expected the Anonymous > channel to be much looser than simply changing the MUSTs of the > Secure Channel to SHOULDs. > - Discussion postponed due to insufficient time. 4) CDDLM-WG demo (30 min) > From Sept. 21 call minutes; > Prefer to do it on OGSA call. Dejan will ask Ayla to do demo on > the OGSA call next week (Wed). > - Ayla's slides are a good introduction. Dejan has forwarded a > link to the OGSA list. But note that the presentation is likely > to be updated before the next demo. > - OGSA members are also welcome to join the CDDLM calls and view > the other demos. Ayla's slides (revised version will be available soon); http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/09/msg00085.html 5) GGF15 and F2F meeting update (20 min) GGF15 session schedule http://www.ggf.org/gf/group_schedule/ F2F meeting schedule https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-B2B-GGF15-Schedu… 6) Wrap up AOB <NEXT WEEK> Oct. 3-6: GGF15 Oct. 6-7: F2F meeting -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

OGSA discovery study template
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

I have put together a draft template for a study of existing Discovery systems and design of future OGSA discovery. Comments on the template as well as contributions from existing grid projects are most welcome. Abdeslem PS: David: The Unicore text below covers items 1,2,3 and 9 from the template. I can cut and paste it if you want but a bit more information on the interfaces and the data model would be nice. -----Original Message----- From: David Snelling [mailto:David.Snelling@uk.fujitsu.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 2:33 PM To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call Abdeslem, On 28 Sep 2005, at 12:13, Djaoui, A ((Abdeslem)) wrote: > Thanks for that Dave, it might be useful if we put a template together > and ask different projects to fill it in. > I will circulate a draft ASAP. Good idea. If you can pick apart the Unicore answer for the sections, it might give you a head start. If you think of sections I haven't implicitly filled in already, let me know. I'll fill them in quickly and you can have a sample as well as a template. > > Abdeslem > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Snelling [mailto:David.Snelling@uk.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Sat 9/24/2005 12:33 PM > To: Hiro Kishimoto > Cc: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem); Andreas Savva; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call > > Abdeslem, > > To get you started: > > Registry services in Production Unicore are integrated (the Grid fabric > populates it rather than allowing registration). The registry of > available resources, software, system load, and other services (such as > brokers) are may available to clients on request. Most of this > information is static and clients may choose to cache it. Most clients > today cache it for the time they run and then refresh it when the start > up. The Intel client allows manual refresh. Each registry is maintained > by the sites, i.e. there is no central regisrty. However, the > University of Manchester's Resource Broker I believe caches information > from several sites to facilitate "Candidate Set Generation". Access to > all this information is subject to authorization, e.g. non-public > registry. > > There has been some concern that the registry is an "all or nothing" > implementation without a search facility causes an excessive load on > server to client communication, but we have never had feedback from > this issue. > > There is a separate mechanism for registering jobs. By default, users > see their own root jobs at the site where they were consigned. Sub-jobs > at each site are only visible optionally - not supported by most > clients today. There is a admin role that allows administrators to see > jobs at a remote site. > > In the prototype Unicore/GS, built on WSRF, the registry is still in > the planning stages. It is expected that all the above information, > which is already available as Resource Properties of the "Atomic > Services" (the Unicore dual to GRAM, RFT, etc.) will be available also > through a Service Group based registry in the near term. > > We have not studied the possibility of a UDDI registry since the OGSI > days. There may be fresh possibilities there. > > On 24 Sep 2005, at 2:35, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > >> Hi Abdeslem, >> >> As a first step of defining Discovery and Registry in the Grid, can >> you champion a study of existing grip projects; EGEE, OMII, Globus, >> UNICORE, TeraGrid, etc. >> >> Thanks, >> ---- >> Hiro Kishimoto >> >> Andreas Savva wrote: >>> In OGSA, yes. But the WSRF BP is not the place to make such >>> statements. >>> The Roadmap is, so if there is a specific plan it should be added >>> there. >>> Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >>>> Well, my point is that Discovery is fundamental in OGSA and MUST be >>>> (not MAY be) addressed by OGSA, especially now that UDDI is excluded >>>> from the base profile. But I agree that the plans and decisions are >>>> still to be discussed. >>>> >>>> Abdeslem >>>> ///////////// >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:10 PM >>>> To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) >>>> Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >>>> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call >>>> >>>> >>>> I disagree. There are no firm decisions or plans so 'may' is more >>>> appropriate at the moment. >>>> >>>> Andreas >>>> >>>> Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> Following from previous email... I see I am too late and a decision >>>>> has >>>>> already been made. So I suggest modifying the sentence >>>>> "There may be >>>>> additional profiles in the future that will include discovery >>>>> functions" >>>>> >>>>> to: >>>>> >>>>> "Discovery will be covered by future specifications and profiles." >>>>> >>>>> Abdeslem >>>>> ////////////// >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of >>>>> Hiro Kishimoto >>>>> Sent: 22 September 2005 09:26 >>>>> To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >>>>> Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> At the today's OGSA-WG call, we discussed BP 1.0 once more and >>>>> agreed >>>>> the following two; >>>>> >>>>> (1) Exclude UDDI section of WS-I BP 1.1 from OGSA WSRF BP >>>>> Now, section 1.2 (page 4 line 114-116) says; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This Profile extends the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 [WS-I BP 1.1]. All >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> requirements except for section 5 "Service Publication and >>>>> Discovery" >>>>> specified in WS-I BP 1.1 pertain to this Profile. There may be >>>>> additional profiles in the future that will include discovery >>>>> functions. >>>>> >>>>> Revised really final draft (v043) is on the GridForge. >>>>> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf- >>>>> ogsa-wsr >>>>> f-basic-profile/en/39 >>>>> >>>>> (2) Submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 (v043) to GGF Editor this Friday >>>>> Given that OGSA Basic Security Profiles need more time to complete >>>>> (maybe after GGF15), we agreed to submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 alone to >>>>> GGF >>>>> Editor this Friday. If you have any farther comments on this draft, >>>>> please let us know before EoB Friday (Sept. 23). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> > -- > > 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) > > > -- 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

RE: [ogsa-wg] Information model profile doc for OGSA -- initial thoughts
by Andrea Westerinen (andreaw) 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

Hiro, I can take the action to draw up the BES profile for the tool that we have developed (available from www.cimwizard.com and fully functional on Eclipse). That tool can then output documentation as well :-). I like your suggestion and its simplicity. Andrea PS. Note that the work on cimwizard.com is only binaries. We have not yet finished the paperwork to release the open source. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 1:24 AM > To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Information model profile doc for OGSA > -- initial thoughts > > Hi Fred, > > My comments in line <HK>. > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Fred Maciel wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I've been thinking of our guidance document on CIM profiles > and how to > > represent them on the OGSA spec. I don't have any answers, but at > > least I got to the point where I have a lot of questions... :-) I'm > > hoping to have your opinion on them in Monday's > teleconference. So, let's start. > > > > First of all, DMTF's document on how to write a profile has > started a > > one-month review inside the DMTF, so all DMTF members should have > > access to it. The document is right on the top of the > document review page: > > http://www.dmtf.org/members/review/ . It's still DMTF > confidential so > > I can't post it here (sorry), but I'm taking into > consideration since > > it should be publicly available in a month as a preliminary > document. > > Meanwhile, the first slides of Andrea's presentation in the last > > face-to-face (see > > > http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/08/msg00075.ht > > ml > > ) are a good summary of the sections and contents in such a profile. > > > > The DMTF document gives all the details on how to specify a > profile, > > includes a lot of experience (which allows us to avoid some > pitfalls) > > and saves us a lot of time. However, I think that it's an > overkill for > > individual OGSA specs (*), especially the ones that cover > only one or > > two classes. > > > > So what I'm thinking for now is two levels: > > (1) We create an information model profile per OGSA area (Execution > > Management, Data, etc.), or, a profile for OGSA with > sub-profiles for > > each area. These can be part of an OGSA profile (i.e., some of the > > OGSA profiles will include the corresponding information > model profile). > > These profiles act as integration points between the pieces of the > > information models that each individual OGSA spec uses. The > definition > > of these information model profiles follows the guidelines > of the DMTF > > profile spec. > > <HK> > As I mentioned at the Aug. F2F, I would like to have simple > management profile document on BES container as an example > within OGSA-WG. > > Given Fred, Andrea, and Ellen has done CIM/JSDL/GLUE > comparison already. > Is it possible to have very early profile draft at F2F meeting? > Since DMTF's usage guide is not publically available, small > sub team, who can access this document, draw up profile draft > and full OGSA-WG reviews this draft. > > Based on the synopsis definition on Andrea's slides, this > profile is something like; > > - Profile name: BES Container Profile > - Version: 1.0 > - Organization: GGF > - CIM Schema: 2.9.0 (or 2.10.0?) > - One paragraph summary: > The BES Container Profile defines management capability of > BES containers. > > Mandatory CIM element: System, ComputerSystem, OperatingSystem, > CPUArchitecture > Optional CIM element: NetworkBandwidth, DiskSpace, FileSystem </HK> > > > (2) Individual specs show the information models they use in a > > lightweight way. The OGSA document on how to write an information > > model profile (we need a title and a nickname for it. > Suggestions?) is > > a guideline on how to specify the information model on these specs. > > > > Notice that Cisco's modeling tool (about to become > open-source) will > > be useful for both (1) and (2) above. It can even change > the balance > > of things above in subtle ways depending on how (and how much) it > > makes the creation of a profile easier. > > > > That's all for now. Opinions please. > > > > Regards, > > > > Fred Maciel > > Hitachi America R&D > > > > (*) By "individual OGSA specs" I mean specs like ByteIO, OGSA-BES, > > etc., not the roadmap, profile definition, guideline specs, > the OGSA > > spec itself, etc. > > > > > > >

2 1

CDDLM - ACS - EMS Interactions
by Stuart Schaefer 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

Sorry for the time it took to build all of this. I have built three scenarios to discuss the possible interactions between CDDLM, ACS and the remainder of the core. Each scenario has two assets, a sequence diagram and a block diagram of the OGSA architecture adapted from the base EMS diagram. Additionally, I have attached the CDDLM/ACS interaction proposal created by the ACS team at GGF 14. In the first scenario, CDDLM draws directly from the repository as shown in the ACS diagrams and the model used in the original EMS Scenario #3. In the second scenario, CDDLM uses OGSA Data Services as a conduit to access the ACS repository (knowing that the data services architecture is in progress). In the final scenario, I propose splitting CDDLM from knowledge of the repository by using the OGSA services as intermediary. The CDDLM architecture was designed to allow remote files to be added to it for local deployments. It was not originally presumed that we would be drawing from a remote repository using an undefined protocol. See everyone tonight, Stuart

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Information services for OGSA 1.5
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

SEE INLINED </AD> COMMENTS. Abdeslem -----Original Message----- From: Michael Behrens [mailto:behrens@r2ad.com] Sent: Sun 9/25/2005 2:26 AM To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Information services for OGSA 1.5 I've read the additions to the document and I like the additional alternative discovery mechanism which uses multicast. Perhaps other mechanisms in a grid fabric might also use multicast to convey information. <AD>IN THEORY YES </AD> What is your opinion on this possibility: When a user submits a job request (via a portal for instance), the job manager would convey the request to other services which trigger the (potential) instantiation of new services. Any new service addresses are returned as part of the instantian process and are conveyed directly to the information services and others. Since the locations (EPRs or WS-Names) of the services are passed around in an event driven model, would it obviated the need for searching (discovery)? <AD>WHERE IS MULTICAST USED HERE, IT CERTAINLY IS APPROPRIATE FOR SERVICES TO ANNOUNCE THEMSELVES WHEN THEY ARE INSTANTIATED. AN INFORMATION SERVICE CAN "LISTEN" TO SUCH ANNOUCEMENTS AND REGISTER SUCH SERVICES DYNAMICALLY. </AD> I thought the naming section was important. Was it replaced by something else or moved elsewhere? <AD> MOVED - SEE ANDREAS MESSAGE </AD> Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >Hi Andreas > >Please find revised section on Information services for OGSA 1.5. I have removed Naming, added a small paragraph on INFOD and one on dynamic discovery and made some small edits. > >Please read and either accept the changes or comment by Email as it I may not be able to make the normal call. > >Thanks > >Abdeslem > > -- Michael Behrens R2AD, LLC (571) 594-3008 (cell) *new* (703) 714-0442 (land)

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Revised F2F meeting schedule
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

Hi Hiro it might be better to swap ogsa-wg recharter and agsa 1.5 review. What do you think? Abdeslem -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org on behalf of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Tue 9/27/2005 4:06 AM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] Revised F2F meeting schedule Hi all, Per OGSA-naming WG co-chairs request, we agree to switch EMS (3) session and OGSA-naming on Thursday. I hope it is ok for everyone. The latest Thursday schedule is; 8-9:30am EMS (1) WS-Agreement discussion 9:30am-11am EMS (2) CDDLM & ACS discussion (I) 11am-12:30pm EMS (3) CDDLM & ACS discussion (II) 12:30-1:30pm Lunch 1:30-3pm OGSA-naming session 3:30-5pm Resource Management, information/data model discussion 5-6pm OGSA-WG re-charter draft review The schedule is on the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-B2B-GGF15-Schedu… If you've already answered the on-line survey but you name is not on the attendee list, please let me know. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

Thanks for that Dave, it might be useful if we put a template together and ask different projects to fill it in. I will circulate a draft ASAP. Abdeslem -----Original Message----- From: David Snelling [mailto:David.Snelling@uk.fujitsu.com] Sent: Sat 9/24/2005 12:33 PM To: Hiro Kishimoto Cc: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem); Andreas Savva; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call Abdeslem, To get you started: Registry services in Production Unicore are integrated (the Grid fabric populates it rather than allowing registration). The registry of available resources, software, system load, and other services (such as brokers) are may available to clients on request. Most of this information is static and clients may choose to cache it. Most clients today cache it for the time they run and then refresh it when the start up. The Intel client allows manual refresh. Each registry is maintained by the sites, i.e. there is no central regisrty. However, the University of Manchester's Resource Broker I believe caches information from several sites to facilitate "Candidate Set Generation". Access to all this information is subject to authorization, e.g. non-public registry. There has been some concern that the registry is an "all or nothing" implementation without a search facility causes an excessive load on server to client communication, but we have never had feedback from this issue. There is a separate mechanism for registering jobs. By default, users see their own root jobs at the site where they were consigned. Sub-jobs at each site are only visible optionally - not supported by most clients today. There is a admin role that allows administrators to see jobs at a remote site. In the prototype Unicore/GS, built on WSRF, the registry is still in the planning stages. It is expected that all the above information, which is already available as Resource Properties of the "Atomic Services" (the Unicore dual to GRAM, RFT, etc.) will be available also through a Service Group based registry in the near term. We have not studied the possibility of a UDDI registry since the OGSI days. There may be fresh possibilities there. On 24 Sep 2005, at 2:35, Hiro Kishimoto wrote: > Hi Abdeslem, > > As a first step of defining Discovery and Registry in the Grid, can > you champion a study of existing grip projects; EGEE, OMII, Globus, > UNICORE, TeraGrid, etc. > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Andreas Savva wrote: >> In OGSA, yes. But the WSRF BP is not the place to make such >> statements. >> The Roadmap is, so if there is a specific plan it should be added >> there. >> Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >>> Well, my point is that Discovery is fundamental in OGSA and MUST be >>> (not MAY be) addressed by OGSA, especially now that UDDI is excluded >>> from the base profile. But I agree that the plans and decisions are >>> still to be discussed. >>> >>> Abdeslem >>> ///////////// >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:10 PM >>> To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) >>> Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >>> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call >>> >>> >>> I disagree. There are no firm decisions or plans so 'may' is more >>> appropriate at the moment. >>> >>> Andreas >>> >>> Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi >>>> Following from previous email... I see I am too late and a decision >>>> has >>>> already been made. So I suggest modifying the sentence >>>> "There may be >>>> additional profiles in the future that will include discovery >>>> functions" >>>> >>>> to: >>>> >>>> "Discovery will be covered by future specifications and profiles." >>>> >>>> Abdeslem >>>> ////////////// >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On >>>> Behalf Of >>>> Hiro Kishimoto >>>> Sent: 22 September 2005 09:26 >>>> To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >>>> Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> At the today's OGSA-WG call, we discussed BP 1.0 once more and >>>> agreed >>>> the following two; >>>> >>>> (1) Exclude UDDI section of WS-I BP 1.1 from OGSA WSRF BP >>>> Now, section 1.2 (page 4 line 114-116) says; >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> This Profile extends the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 [WS-I BP 1.1]. All >>>>> >>>> >>>> requirements except for section 5 "Service Publication and >>>> Discovery" >>>> specified in WS-I BP 1.1 pertain to this Profile. There may be >>>> additional profiles in the future that will include discovery >>>> functions. >>>> >>>> Revised really final draft (v043) is on the GridForge. >>>> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf- >>>> ogsa-wsr >>>> f-basic-profile/en/39 >>>> >>>> (2) Submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 (v043) to GGF Editor this Friday >>>> Given that OGSA Basic Security Profiles need more time to complete >>>> (maybe after GGF15), we agreed to submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 alone to >>>> GGF >>>> Editor this Friday. If you have any farther comments on this draft, >>>> please let us know before EoB Friday (Sept. 23). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > > -- 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

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

Hi Hiro I would like to, but we would need to identify people who are willing to contribute to this initiative. I can of course do EGEE and make some guesses at some other projects, but it would be better if we have some input from the projects themselves. Any name suggestions? Abdeslem -----Original Message----- From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Sat 9/24/2005 2:35 AM To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) Cc: Andreas Savva; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call Hi Abdeslem, As a first step of defining Discovery and Registry in the Grid, can you champion a study of existing grip projects; EGEE, OMII, Globus, UNICORE, TeraGrid, etc. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Andreas Savva wrote: > In OGSA, yes. But the WSRF BP is not the place to make such statements. > The Roadmap is, so if there is a specific plan it should be added there. > > Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: > > >>Well, my point is that Discovery is fundamental in OGSA and MUST be (not MAY be) addressed by OGSA, especially now that UDDI is excluded from the base profile. But I agree that the plans and decisions are still to be discussed. >> >>Abdeslem >>///////////// >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com] >>Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:10 PM >>To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) >>Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >>Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call >> >> >>I disagree. There are no firm decisions or plans so 'may' is more >>appropriate at the moment. >> >>Andreas >> >>Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>Hi >>> >>>Following from previous email... I see I am too late and a decision has >>>already been made. So I suggest modifying the sentence >>>"There may be >>>additional profiles in the future that will include discovery functions" >>> >>>to: >>> >>>"Discovery will be covered by future specifications and profiles." >>> >>>Abdeslem >>>////////////// >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of >>>Hiro Kishimoto >>>Sent: 22 September 2005 09:26 >>>To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >>>Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call >>> >>>Hi all, >>> >>>At the today's OGSA-WG call, we discussed BP 1.0 once more and agreed >>>the following two; >>> >>>(1) Exclude UDDI section of WS-I BP 1.1 from OGSA WSRF BP >>>Now, section 1.2 (page 4 line 114-116) says; >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>This Profile extends the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 [WS-I BP 1.1]. All >>>> >>>> >>> >>>requirements except for section 5 "Service Publication and Discovery" >>>specified in WS-I BP 1.1 pertain to this Profile. There may be >>>additional profiles in the future that will include discovery functions. >>> >>>Revised really final draft (v043) is on the GridForge. >>>https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsr >>>f-basic-profile/en/39 >>> >>>(2) Submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 (v043) to GGF Editor this Friday >>>Given that OGSA Basic Security Profiles need more time to complete >>>(maybe after GGF15), we agreed to submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 alone to GGF >>>Editor this Friday. If you have any farther comments on this draft, >>>please let us know before EoB Friday (Sept. 23). >>> >>>Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > >

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 26 September 2005
by Andreas Savva 27 Sep '05

27 Sep '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge url: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050926/en/1 (Thanks to Jem for taking minutes for the first part of the call.) -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 26 September 2005 ======================================= * Participants Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Tom Maguire (EMC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Manuel Pereira (IBM) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Latha Srinivasan (HP) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Minutes: Jem Treadwell, Andreas Savva * Minutes approval Sep. 19 and Sep. 21 minutes approved with no changes. * GGF15 update - Two sessions at GGF15 on Monday - no comments. * F2F Update - Facilities update by Jay: - A projector will be available. - Not sure if WiFi will be available. - Andrew cannot make it to the F2F for 11am on Thursday. So Hiro will swap OGSA-Naming and EMS/CDDLM/ACS sessions and re-send the schedule. * WS-MetaData discussion From the early days (OGSI), the properties of service data, e.g. read-only, write-only, static, freshness were part of the specs... WS-RF moved metadata to a separate document. The initial pass included putting metadata on operations, and other capabilities. WSDM thought this would be useful functionality. WSRF-TC has recently lost the editor of this document. A call for volunteers has not yielded a replacement yet. At the moment looking for someone from OGSA-WG or the Grid world to do it in the WSRF-TC. An alternative is for OGSA-WG to take it on. The WS-MetaData spec is composable with any other XML specification, not just WS-RP. So it might have wider application. Current document status: the draft has a lot of complexity; some ideas of how it could be simplified exist. And the first job would be to simplify it. It is not a big specification. Dave S encouraged people to consider taking th job of Editor of this document. Both Tom Maguire and Dave Snelling have indicated willingness to help with this document but they cannot take on the role of Editor. * Information Modelling discussion - Fred sent out a proposal to the list. - Following emails from Hiro and Ellen (and a private discussion with Ellen) this proposal is withdrawn in favor of Hiro's and Ellen's proposals. - Ellen's proposal calls for two deliverables: 1. A set of profiles - This is purely technical work. For example, - Identify a number of profiles that cover the EMS components and also define an overall profile for EMS. - The BES container model could be a good first point - A plan for the overall work would also be needed. - THe list of these profiles could be ready by the F2F. But Ellen and Fred do not think that they can go to the point of doing an outline for a specific profile by that time. 2. A document describing the "rules of engagement" for doing profiles - This could end up being an informational document. - Contents: How the work relates to information models; how it relates to CIM (and that it does not mean the whole CIM has to be used), that extensions can be done and so on. Also what the outline of such profiles would look like; what the GGF specific portion of such documents would be and so on. - The RM design team will be responsible for doing this document---at least to the point of a first draft. - It should (and needs to) be done fairly quickly. A strawman could be ready for review at the F2F. - And at the EMS session work on listing the set of proposed profiles. But the actual work on doing these profiles would start after the F2F. - In contrast Hiro placed more importance on having a worked example profile ready by the F2F. The BES container is something tractable, on which some work has been done already and could be ready (in first draft form) by the F2F. - Hiro volunteered to start working on the container profile. - Ellen and Fred are unlikely to have any time before. They will help as much as possible but since they don't expect to start working on the "Rules of engagement" before GGF15, it is unlikely to be able to help a lot before the F2F. - Andrea W's tool was mentioned. Noone on the call has actually tried it out yet. So it is not clear how useful it would be at this point. In any case content is more important than trying out tools at this moment. - Ellen to ask Andrea about the tool. - Fred outlined an agenda for the Information Modelling session at the F2F. - Review of guidelines document - Discussion of which profiles needed for EMS - Container, scheduling, etc. - Fred to send a formal agenda to Hiro. * Other news - The Roadmap is now published on GGF site - The Profile Definition is now in public comment - The WSRF BP is in GFSG review

1 0

Revised F2F meeting schedule
by Hiro Kishimoto 27 Sep '05

27 Sep '05

Hi all, Per OGSA-naming WG co-chairs request, we agree to switch EMS (3) session and OGSA-naming on Thursday. I hope it is ok for everyone. The latest Thursday schedule is; 8-9:30am EMS (1) WS-Agreement discussion 9:30am-11am EMS (2) CDDLM & ACS discussion (I) 11am-12:30pm EMS (3) CDDLM & ACS discussion (II) 12:30-1:30pm Lunch 1:30-3pm OGSA-naming session 3:30-5pm Resource Management, information/data model discussion 5-6pm OGSA-WG re-charter draft review The schedule is on the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-B2B-GGF15-Schedu… If you've already answered the on-line survey but you name is not on the attendee list, please let me know. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

No RM teleconference on the 27th
by Fred Maciel 27 Sep '05

27 Sep '05

Hi, No RM teleconference on the 27th -- nothing left to discuss from the teleconference today. Given that we are using the OGSA-WG teleconferences for discussions, I'll change this teleconference from "do by default" to "don't do by default" ("on demand" sounds more trendy... :-). So, from now on, if I don't announce the teleconference, it means that we are not having it. See you in Boston, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Information model profile doc for OGSA -- initial thoughts
by Fred Maciel 26 Sep '05

26 Sep '05

Hi all, I've been thinking of our guidance document on CIM profiles and how to represent them on the OGSA spec. I don't have any answers, but at least I got to the point where I have a lot of questions... :-) I'm hoping to have your opinion on them in Monday's teleconference. So, let's start. First of all, DMTF's document on how to write a profile has started a one-month review inside the DMTF, so all DMTF members should have access to it. The document is right on the top of the document review page: http://www.dmtf.org/members/review/ . It's still DMTF confidential so I can't post it here (sorry), but I'm taking into consideration since it should be publicly available in a month as a preliminary document. Meanwhile, the first slides of Andrea's presentation in the last face-to-face (see http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/08/msg00075.html ) are a good summary of the sections and contents in such a profile. The DMTF document gives all the details on how to specify a profile, includes a lot of experience (which allows us to avoid some pitfalls) and saves us a lot of time. However, I think that it's an overkill for individual OGSA specs (*), especially the ones that cover only one or two classes. So what I'm thinking for now is two levels: (1) We create an information model profile per OGSA area (Execution Management, Data, etc.), or, a profile for OGSA with sub-profiles for each area. These can be part of an OGSA profile (i.e., some of the OGSA profiles will include the corresponding information model profile). These profiles act as integration points between the pieces of the information models that each individual OGSA spec uses. The definition of these information model profiles follows the guidelines of the DMTF profile spec. (2) Individual specs show the information models they use in a lightweight way. The OGSA document on how to write an information model profile (we need a title and a nickname for it. Suggestions?) is a guideline on how to specify the information model on these specs. Notice that Cisco's modeling tool (about to become open-source) will be useful for both (1) and (2) above. It can even change the balance of things above in subtle ways depending on how (and how much) it makes the creation of a profile easier. That's all for now. Opinions please. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D (*) By "individual OGSA specs" I mean specs like ByteIO, OGSA-BES, etc., not the roadmap, profile definition, guideline specs, the OGSA spec itself, etc.

3 2

Proposed agenda for Sept. 26th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 26 Sep '05

26 Sep '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Sept. 26th 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: 0926 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 (Sept. 19 & 21) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050919 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050921 Agenda bashing 2) GGF15 and F2F meeting update (20 min) GGF15 session schedule http://www.ggf.org/gf/group_schedule/ F2F meeting schedule https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-B2B-GGF15-Schedu… 3) WS-MetaData discussion (10 min, if Dave Snelling is available) > The WSRF TC currently seeking an editor for the > WS-ResourceMetadataDescriptor specification. > Options are: > 1) Someone from OGSA could join WSRF and volunteer to be the > editor. > 2) WSRF could transfer responsibility for the spec to OGSA. > 3) OGSA could pursue an alternate mechanism for metadata. 4) information model profile discussion (80 min) > From Fred's email http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/09/msg00086.html > So what I'm thinking for now is two levels: > (1) We create an information model profile per OGSA area (Execution > Management, Data, etc.), or, a profile for OGSA with sub-profiles for > each area. These can be part of an OGSA profile (i.e., some of the OGSA > profiles will include the corresponding information model profile). > These profiles act as integration points between the pieces of the > information models that each individual OGSA spec uses. The definition > of these information model profiles follows the guidelines of the DMTF > profile spec. > (2) Individual specs show the information models they use in a > lightweight way. The OGSA document on how to write an information model > profile (we need a title and a nickname for it. Suggestions?) is a > guideline on how to specify the information model on these specs. Aug. F2F meeting minutes; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050818-… Andrea's presentation on DMTF & Cisco Profile; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/dmtf-cisco-profile-ov… DMTF's profile guide (if you are DMTF member) http://www.dmtf.org/members/review/ 5) Wrap up () AOB <NEXT CALL> Sept. 28 (Wed) OGSA-AuthZ-WG, Basic Security Profiles, CDDLM-WG demo by Ayla?, GGF15 & F2F preparation Oct. 3-6: GGF15 Oct. 6-7: F2F meeting Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Information services for OGSA 1.5
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 26 Sep '05

26 Sep '05

Hi Andreas Please find revised section on Information services for OGSA 1.5. I have removed Naming, added a small paragraph on INFOD and one on dynamic discovery and made some small edits. Please read and either accept the changes or comment by Email as it I may not be able to make the normal call. Thanks Abdeslem

3 2

Teleconference minutes - 21 September 2005
by Andreas Savva 25 Sep '05

25 Sep '05

Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050921/en -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - 21 September 2005 ======================================= * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Allen Luniewski (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Dejan Milojicic (HP) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Latha Srinivasan (HP) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Jem Treadwell (HP) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Jay Unger (IBM) Apologies: Ellen Stokes Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes approval - Sep 14 minutes approved with modifications. Hiro to correct. - Sep 21 minutes approval postponed for next week. * October F2F Update - Request to put Naming early on Thursday - Andrew has a conflicting session (Community track) - Agreed to schedule the naming session mid-morning - Proposal to start early Thursday the morning: - Agreed to start at 8:00am since many people plan to leave early. - From the survey so far more than 20 people are expected. Also some people (Fred, Jem) haven't completed the survey yet. - It was noted that many people are attending only some portions (mainly Thursday morning) so even if more than 20 people are on the list the IBM facility may be adequate. - Jay has a logistics document describing location and so on and will send it to Hiro. - Actions on Jay - Re-check the real room capacity (stated at ~20 people) - Reserve a projector - Jem volunteered to bring a projector if one is not available. Need advance notice - Check if there is a telephone line - Provide updated status by Monday - Hitachi (Fred) might be an alternative venue but it is further away. - Hiro will put together a complete agenda/logistics doc and send to the list. * Resource Metadata Editor discussion postponed (prefer to have Dave Snelling on the call for this discussion) * EMS - Agreed to postpone technical discussion (many key people missing) - Agreed (last call) that viewing a CDDLM demo would improve understanding of CDDLM functionality. This demo could be arranged a number of different ways: - On a CDDLM call (possibly adding Ayla's demo) - On an OGSA call (specifically for OGSA) - This Friday there is a demo from Softricity (CDDLM call) - CDDLM demo during GGF15 Prefer to do it on OGSA call. Dejan will ask Ayla to do demo on the OGSA call next week (Wed). - Ayla's slides are a good introduction. Dejan has forwarded a link to the OGSA list. But note that the presentation is likely to be updated before the next demo. - OGSA members are also welcome to join the CDDLM calls and view the other demos. For GGF15 the OGSA status session overlaps one of the CDDLM sessions. This OGSA session is a high-level oveview session and it is not essential for CDDLM members to attend. - The last GGF15 CDDLM session (Monday 6pm) is reserved for discussions with other groups (ACS, OGSA). - The second CDDLM session is for demos. - BES and CDDLM connection? - It should be explored in the context of EMS rather than just between CDDLM and BES. BES is focused on producing its own spec. - Stuart is working on refining Mike's sequence diagram and may have something by next call. * OGSA WSRF Basic Profile Review - Submission schedule - Initial plan called for waiting for the completion of the security profiles and their simultaneous submission with the WSRF BP. But the security profiles are likely to take some time---definitely cannot be ready by GGF15. - Agreed to (re-)submit BP first (Note BP was submitted a few months back and then placed in a temporary 'hold' state.) - Also agreed to try and speed up the basic security profiles in order to have a partially overlapping public comment period with the BP. - Exclude UDDI portion of WS-I BP 1.1 - There is no specific reference to UDDI in OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 (functionality is out of scope) but it is included by reference to BP 1.1. - Agreed that is should be explicitly excluded from the OGSA WSRF BP. - Discovery is important and should be covered somewhere; perhaps as a separate profile. But we cannot take a position on what the mechanisms are at this point. - Agreed to add a clarification to Hiro's proposed text to address the possible question of where discovery might be covered. - Has there been a complete review of BP 1.1 to make sure there are no other features that are being included by accident? - No. But Hiro is not aware of any other issues. - Agreed that such a review should be done but there is no reason to hold up the submission for this. The review can be done during public comment. The Authors/Contributors in particular should be encouraged to do this review. - Hiro will make the necessary change to the WSRF BP and do a final call on the list. The plan is to submit it to Greg by the end of this week.

2 1

OGSA F2F meeting back-to-back GGF15 first draft schedule
by Hiro Kishimoto 24 Sep '05

24 Sep '05

Hi all, I've upload first draft of OGSA F2F meeting back-to-back GGF15 schedule to GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-B2B-GGF15-Schedu… Session owners: please provide your detailed session schedule. I will merge it into future version. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 document submitted to GGF Editor
by Hiro Kishimoto 24 Sep '05

24 Sep '05

Hi all, Just an FYI that the OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 document has been re-submitted to the GGF Editor for public comment review. I uploaded version 43, which we approved at Sept. 21st call. Thanks as always to everyone who made this submission available. Now, we should focus on two basic security profiles :-) -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 24 Sep '05

24 Sep '05

Well, my point is that Discovery is fundamental in OGSA and MUST be (not MAY be) addressed by OGSA, especially now that UDDI is excluded from the base profile. But I agree that the plans and decisions are still to be discussed. Abdeslem ///////////// -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:10 PM To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call I disagree. There are no firm decisions or plans so 'may' is more appropriate at the moment. Andreas Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >Hi > >Following from previous email... I see I am too late and a decision has >already been made. So I suggest modifying the sentence >"There may be >additional profiles in the future that will include discovery functions" > >to: > >"Discovery will be covered by future specifications and profiles." > >Abdeslem >////////////// > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of >Hiro Kishimoto >Sent: 22 September 2005 09:26 >To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call > >Hi all, > >At the today's OGSA-WG call, we discussed BP 1.0 once more and agreed >the following two; > >(1) Exclude UDDI section of WS-I BP 1.1 from OGSA WSRF BP >Now, section 1.2 (page 4 line 114-116) says; > > > This Profile extends the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 [WS-I BP 1.1]. All >requirements except for section 5 "Service Publication and Discovery" >specified in WS-I BP 1.1 pertain to this Profile. There may be >additional profiles in the future that will include discovery functions. > >Revised really final draft (v043) is on the GridForge. >https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsr >f-basic-profile/en/39 > >(2) Submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 (v043) to GGF Editor this Friday >Given that OGSA Basic Security Profiles need more time to complete >(maybe after GGF15), we agreed to submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 alone to GGF >Editor this Friday. If you have any farther comments on this draft, >please let us know before EoB Friday (Sept. 23). > >Thanks, > >

4 3

RE: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 21 September 2005
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 24 Sep '05

24 Sep '05

Thanks for the clarification David. Putting it another way UDDI can still be used, but a separate claim for conformance should reference WS_I basic profile rather ogsa-wsrf-basic-profile. Abdeslem -----Original Message----- From: David Snelling [mailto:David.Snelling@uk.fujitsu.com] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 10:47 AM To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) Cc: Andreas Savva; ogsa-wg Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 21 September 2005 Abdeslem, The reason for excluding UDDI from the profile is NOT to prohibit its use, but to allow OGSA to use other discovery techniques. The wording in the Basic Profile is quite strong wrt the use of UDDI. On 22 Sep 2005, at 11:13, Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) wrote: >>> - Exclude UDDI portion of WS-I BP 1.1 >>> - There is no specific reference to UDDI in OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 >>> (functionality is out of scope) but it is included by reference >>> to BP 1.1. >>> - Agreed that is should be explicitly excluded from the OGSA WSRF >>> BP. >>> - Discovery is important and should be covered somewhere; perhaps >>> as a separate profile. But we cannot take a position on what the >>> mechanisms are at this point. >>> - Agreed to add a clarification to Hiro's proposed text to address >>> the possible question of where discovery might be covered. > > Discovery is part of the information services capabilities and it will > be covered there. However there are many aspects of discovery. > For web services in general I don't see why we should exclude UDDI. In > general OGSA should not prohibit already accepted and agreed upon > standards. > So the use of UDI should be left as an option. > For Grid resources (that are not web services) OGSA needs additional > mechanisms along the lines of GMA and INFOD. > > Abdeslem > /////////////// > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of > Andreas Savva > Sent: 22 September 2005 01:37 > To: 'ogsa-wg' > Subject: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 21 September 2005 > > Minutes attached. > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes > -20050921/e > n > > -- > Andreas Savva > > -- 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)

2 1

Ad-hoc BOF on Streams at GGF15
by Dave Berry 23 Sep '05

23 Sep '05

All, I apologise for cross-posting so widely; we are trying to reach people who are work with data streams in a Grid setting and there is no obvious single place to post. We are organising an ad-hoc BOF at GGF15 on the subject of data streams in Grid architectures. Our aim is to bring together people working on various aspects of data streams. Our personal goals are to determine how best to fit streams into the OGSA Data architecture but we also see this session as an opportunity for people to share experiences and meet others working in overlapping areas. The BOF will be from 6.00-7.30pm on Monday Oct. 3rd. The first half of the session will see presenters addressing some of the questions below. We will keep the second half of the session for discussion. Issues to consider: - What do we mean by a "data stream"? - Grids have to consider attributes such as security, persistence, and quality of service. Do these raise any particular questions for streams? - What are the important use cases? Are there unusual or non-obvious cases that we need to consider? - What is the natural programming model for streams in a distributed environment? - How do we connect one stream to another? - How do streams fit into a service-oriented architecture? - The OGSA Data Architecture currently has sections on Provisioning, Querying, Replication, Caching, etc. Do these apply to streams as well as static data? Are there any particular aspects of streams that affect any of these sections? We look forward to seeing you there. Dave Berry Research Manager, National e-Science Centre 15 South College St., Edinburgh Tel: +44 131 6514039

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 21 September 2005
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 23 Sep '05

23 Sep '05

>> - Exclude UDDI portion of WS-I BP 1.1 >> - There is no specific reference to UDDI in OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 >> (functionality is out of scope) but it is included by reference >> to BP 1.1. >> - Agreed that is should be explicitly excluded from the OGSA WSRF >> BP. >> - Discovery is important and should be covered somewhere; perhaps >> as a separate profile. But we cannot take a position on what the >> mechanisms are at this point. >> - Agreed to add a clarification to Hiro's proposed text to address >> the possible question of where discovery might be covered. Discovery is part of the information services capabilities and it will be covered there. However there are many aspects of discovery. For web services in general I don't see why we should exclude UDDI. In general OGSA should not prohibit already accepted and agreed upon standards. So the use of UDI should be left as an option. For Grid resources (that are not web services) OGSA needs additional mechanisms along the lines of GMA and INFOD. Abdeslem /////////////// -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Savva Sent: 22 September 2005 01:37 To: 'ogsa-wg' Subject: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 21 September 2005 Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050921/e n -- Andreas Savva

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 22 Sep '05

22 Sep '05

Hi Following from previous email... I see I am too late and a decision has already been made. So I suggest modifying the sentence "There may be additional profiles in the future that will include discovery functions" to: "Discovery will be covered by future specifications and profiles." Abdeslem ////////////// -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: 22 September 2005 09:26 To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call Hi all, At the today's OGSA-WG call, we discussed BP 1.0 once more and agreed the following two; (1) Exclude UDDI section of WS-I BP 1.1 from OGSA WSRF BP Now, section 1.2 (page 4 line 114-116) says; > This Profile extends the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 [WS-I BP 1.1]. All requirements except for section 5 "Service Publication and Discovery" specified in WS-I BP 1.1 pertain to this Profile. There may be additional profiles in the future that will include discovery functions. Revised really final draft (v043) is on the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsr f-basic-profile/en/39 (2) Submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 (v043) to GGF Editor this Friday Given that OGSA Basic Security Profiles need more time to complete (maybe after GGF15), we agreed to submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 alone to GGF Editor this Friday. If you have any farther comments on this draft, please let us know before EoB Friday (Sept. 23). Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1

OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 Editor submission final call
by Hiro Kishimoto 22 Sep '05

22 Sep '05

Hi all, At the today's OGSA-WG call, we discussed BP 1.0 once more and agreed the following two; (1) Exclude UDDI section of WS-I BP 1.1 from OGSA WSRF BP Now, section 1.2 (page 4 line 114-116) says; > This Profile extends the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 [WS-I BP 1.1]. All requirements except for section 5 "Service Publication and Discovery" specified in WS-I BP 1.1 pertain to this Profile. There may be additional profiles in the future that will include discovery functions. Revised really final draft (v043) is on the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… (2) Submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 (v043) to GGF Editor this Friday Given that OGSA Basic Security Profiles need more time to complete (maybe after GGF15), we agreed to submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 alone to GGF Editor this Friday. If you have any farther comments on this draft, please let us know before EoB Friday (Sept. 23). Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

FW: [cddlm] Meeting tomorrow, Wed, 9/14, 6am PST
by Milojicic, Dejan S 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

-----Original Message----- From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ayla Debora Dantas de Souza - Projeto Ourgrid Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 4:47 AM To: Milojicic, Dejan S Cc: cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [cddlm] Meeting tomorrow, Wed, 9/14, 6am PST Hello, I'm sending here a presentation to guide the demo. The demo will be performed using Glance. Please go to http://ayladantas.glance.net and enter the session key "0511" to join the session that I will open during our meeting. Best regards, Ayla Milojicic, Dejan S wrote: >Hi Team, > >This is a reminder that we have a meeting tomorrow at 6am > >+1 866-639-4732 (toll free while in US) >Code 2362906 (followed by a '#' sign) >+1 574-948-0379 (toll & international) > >The agenda is > >1. demo by UFCG >2. technical discusion (relationship to BES) 3. update on the other >demos at GGF15 4. various > >Thanks, > >Dejan. > > >

1 0

Survey for OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF15
by Hiro Kishimoto 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting again. As you already know, OGSA-WG and fellow WGs are planning to have F2F meeting in Boston, back-to-back with GGF15. The meeting will be held on Thursday (9am-6pm) and Friday (8am-3:30pm) at IBM office in Boston (it is 2.2 miles away from GGF15 venue instead of walking distance). Please keep it in mind that this F2F is workshop style technical discussion. If you want to learn OGSA activities in general, "OGSA Status and direction presentation session" on Oct. 3 (Mon) 11am-12:30pm at Berkely/Clarendon room is the one you should join. In order to obtain admission to the F2F venue, please let us know your plan for attendance by answering the following on-line survey. Deadline is EoB Friday (Sept. 23). http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224MNGGSZFW Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

Re: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-WG F2F draft schedule in Boston (Oct. 6&7)
by Manuel Pereira 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

Hello all, Would it be possible to discuss OGSA-naming early Thursday? Thank you for considering. Manuel Pereira IBM Almaden Research Center 1-408-927-1935 [T/L 457] mpereira(a)us.ibm.com Monday, September 19, 2005 4:56 AM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org cc: From: Hiro Kishimoto <hiro.kishimoto(a)jp.fujitsu.com> Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-WG F2F draft schedule in Boston (Oct. 6&7) Hi all, Based on the all feedbacks on OGSA-WG F2F meeting which is back-to-back with GGF15, the following is the first-cut draft schedule. Let's discuss at upcoming Monday call. Oct.6 (Thursday) 1. 9-10:30 am: EMS (1) WS-Agreement discussion (GRAAP-WG) 2. 11am-12:30pm: EMS (2) CDDLM & ACS discussion (I) 3. 1:30-3pm: EMS (3) CDDLM & ACS discussion (II) 4. 3:30-5pm: Resource Management, info/data model discussion (Fred & Ellen) 5. 5-6pm: OGSA re-charter draft review Oct. 7 (Friday) 1. 8-9:30am: OGSA-BES session (Andrew) 2. 10-11:30am: OGSA-naming session (Andrew) 3. 12:30-2pm: OGSA-data session (DaveB and Allen) 4. 2-3pm: Wrap-up and next step Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

4 3

Teleconference minutes - 19 September 2005
by Andreas Savva 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050919/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 19 September 2005 ======================================= * Participants Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Jay Unger (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Frank Siebenlist (ANL) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Takuya Mori (NEC) Tom Maguire (EMC) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Allen Luniewski (IBM) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Apologies: Ellen Stokes Minutes: Andreas Savva * No teleconference minutes approved * F2F Update - Jay has booked two rooms at the IBM facility for Oct. 6 and 7. - A large room that can accomodate about 20 people and smaller room for about 10 people. - OGSA-WG has to provide a list of attendees so that the local security arrangement (badgets) can be completed. The information needed is - Name, Company - The IBM facility is on the other side of the river from the GGF15 site. It is *not* within easy walking distance. It is a short taxi, or bus ride away. - Address: 1 Roger St., Cambridge, MA Actions: - Hiro will do a survey to collect attendee names - Hiro will collect all information and put together an agenda (to include a map) Scheduling requests: - Frank has to leave Thursday afternoon, and has a conflict on Thursday morning (OGSA AUthZ session is scheduled for 11am). The plan is to try an move the AuthZ session to Wednesday. - Takuya also cannot attend the Thursday meeting - A number of other people can only attend Thursday. ** F2F Agenda - EMS is planned for Thursday - The Information Model discussion in planned for Thursday afternoon (Andrea W will be dialling in) - Agreed to add OGSA 1.5 review on Friday. * GGF15 Update Both OGSA sessions are on Monday Oct.3. * OGSA Roadmap 1.0 The Roadmap has been published (assigned number 53). The document is not linked on the GGF site yet. * OGSA & Glossary 1.5 Update ** Status update - Infrastructure: Waiting for an initial draft - EMS: Waiting for an initial draft - Data: Waiting for an initial draft this week - RM: First draft received - Information: Waiting for an initial draft this week - Self-management: No update expected The work is behind schedule. The next target is to put together a draft for review at the F2F after GGF15. Section owners should provide updated drafts by GGF15. Andreas will start sending update emails to the list. ** RM draft review - Minor changes mainly to fix deprecated terminology. - Also added clarification on resource (physical and logical) - And some text on multiple basic profiles - Confirmed that OGSA 1.5 is a maintenance release and should be updated with work already done. So there will probably be no further changes in this section since the work focus will shift to Profiling. ** Infrastructure proposal review - Discussed Jem two approaches on revising this section. Agreed to put more text on the basic profile including the possibility to change the title of the section. ** Glossary review - Added client - Deleted CMM - Added Data Model: Also to add RFC3444 reference - Added Information Model: changed operators to administrators - Agreed to delete OGSI (also delete from Architecture document) - Added profile - Deprecate 'resource model' term * Basic Security profile - Secure channel review Reviewed draft posted by Takuya. - Changed title to use OGSA(tm) - Revised Abstract to make it focused on security - Revised Relationship with other profiles to focus on security - Removed unused targets from the Conformance Targets section - But introduced some namespaces not listed in the table above; to add. - Need to add the 'generic' basic OGSA security claim URI defined in the OGSA BP. Each security profile conformant to OGSA Basic Security has to define two claim uris. - Takuya to follow up on distinction between ssl and tls. - R0301: Takuya sent out an email but there was not a lot of discussion on the list yet. - Hiro commented on the list that the sender will also be a receiver in many cases. As such everyone will have to implement both TLS and MLS. - Explored what this means, whether it is true in general or whether there are some special cases (notification) which could be covered with different text. - Takuya repeated that his intention is to place this requirement for interoperability - Hiro repeated that this seems to place too much on the implementation of the RECEIVER - Discussed how likely it is that both TLS and MLS are going to be implemented by the same service. It was noted that GT implements both. - There are tradeoffs in using TLS or MLS and there are also performance or architectural implications. As such saying that both must be required for interoperability does not seem quite right. - TLS is more common than MLS. - Considered options such as splitting this profile into 2 more focused ones (TLS and MLS) and another one that allows a choice of one or the other. Also considered mandating TLS and recommending MLS. - (It was noted that the initial text allowed the option of one or the other or none.) - Agreed that the decision on what to require should be based on industry requirements as well as the requirements of other projects. - Agreed to try and get some feedback from companies/projects by next week Wed. - Hiro to get some feedback from within FJ. - Since this issue will take time to reach consensus agreed to submit the OGSA Basic Profile next week and not wait for the completion of the security profiles. - Sec.3.5 first sentence needs revision - R0324: Review Basic profile and check what is the requirement on RECEIVER. Perhaps this should be phrased differently than for the SENDER role. - Agreed to move Ian from Author to Contributors. He is listed as an Author only because this document used the WSRF BP doc as a starting point. - Takuya to ask Tom if he wants to be listed as a co-author or as contributor. - Add WS-Addressing and WSRF BP to the table. Takuya to make necessary revisions and also incorporate Jem's edits. * Basic Security profile - Anonymous channel review - Hiro and Andreas pointed out that they expected the Anonymous channel to be much looser than simply changing the MUSTs of the Secure Channel to SHOULDs. - Discussion postponed due to insufficient time. * Next calls - Agreed to move the AuthZ discussion to Sep.28 - Agreed to add the ResourceMetadataDescriptor editor discussion on Wed or Mon agendas. - Next call is EMS

1 0

OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 and UDDI
by Hiro Kishimoto 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

Hi all, AFAIK, UDDI is mainly for static registration and is not suitable for many gird scenarios. However section 5 of WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 sanctions UDDI 2.0 for Service Publication & Discovery. > When publication or discovery of Web services is required, UDDI is > the mechanism the Profile has adopted to describe Web service > providers and the Web services they provide. Business, intended use, > and Web service type descriptions are made in UDDI terms; detailed > technical descriptions are made in WSDL terms. Where the two > specifications define overlapping descriptive data and both forms of > description are used, the Profile specifies that the descriptions must > not conflict. > Registration of Web service instances in UDDI registries is optional. > By no means do all usage scenarios require the kind of metadata and > discovery UDDI provides, but where such capability is needed, UDDI is > the sanctioned mechanism. Should we exclude section 5 of WS-I BP 1.1? If so, section 1.2 Relationship to other profiles (page 4 line 114-116) should read; "This Profile extends the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 [WS-I BP 1.1]. All requirements except for section 5 "Service Publication and Discovery" specified in WS-I BP 1.1 pertain to this Profile." However, more study is necessary for this topic, thus I also propose to start hearing several Grid projects on this questions in parallel. Let's discuss this issue on Wednesday. -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 14 September 2005
by Hiro Kishimoto 21 Sep '05

21 Sep '05

Thanks Ravi for your feedback, I agree with you and am happy to fix this at the minutes approval on Wednesday. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Subramaniam, Ravi wrote: > Hi Hiro, > > Thanks for the minutes. A quick correction if I may. > > The statement: "Ravi: CGS is not an asset management. CGS only handles > hardware Specs (like CPU type, memory size, etc)" is not correct. > > I had indicated that "CSG does not need to handle only hardware specs > (CPU type, memory etc) but it can also handle other elements of > significance like data etc. A simple CSG can be used for more purposes > than only job execution like for instance asset management." > > Thanks! > > Ravi > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of > Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 6:26 AM > To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 14 September 2005 > > Minutes attached. > > * OGSA F2F meeting back-to-back with GGF15 > * Joint CDDLM-WG EMS discussion > > GridForge URL: > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050914/e > n/1

1 0

Proposed agenda for Sept. 21st call
by Hiro Kishimoto 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Sept. 21st 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: 0921 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-20050912/en/1 GGF15 and F2F update (if any) Agenda bashing 2) OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 submission (10 min) Given that OGSA Basic Security Profiles needs more time to complete (maybe after GGF15), is it better to submit OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 alone to GGF Editor by this week? 3) WS-MetaData discussion (10 min) > The WSRF TC currently seeking an editor for the > WS-ResourceMetadataDescriptor specification. > Options are: > 1) Someone from OGSA could join WSRF and volunteer to be the > editor. > 2) WSRF could transfer responsibility for the spec to OGSA. > 3) OGSA could pursue an alternate mechanism for metadata. 4) EMS architecture discussion (90 min) > Hiro: Get editable scenario file from Mike and pass it to > Stuart. (done) > Stuart: Break down single “provisioner” box into multiple > services which CDDLM-WG and ACS-WG are working on. > Modifications should be color coded. > Dejan: Talk to Ayla when she can make her demo for OGSA team. See Sept. 14 telecon minutes; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050912/en/1 5) Wrap up AOB <NEXT CALL> Sept. 26 (Mon) Information Modeling Sept. 28 (Wed) OGSA-AuthZ-WG, Basic Security Profile, GGF15 & F2F preparation Oct. 3-6: GGF15 Oct. 6-7: F2F meeting Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 14 September 2005
by Hiro Kishimoto 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

Minutes attached. * OGSA F2F meeting back-to-back with GGF15 * Joint CDDLM-WG EMS discussion GridForge URL: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050914/en/1 -- Hiro Kishimoto OGSA Teleconference - 14 September 2005 ======================================= * Participants Ellen Stokes (IBM) Mark Morgan (UVa) Dejan Milojicic (HP) Stuart Schaefer (Softricity) Soonwook Hwang (NAREGI) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Jay Unger (IBM) Allen Luniewski (IBM) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Tom Maguire (EMC) Jem Treadwell (HP) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Minutes: Hiro Kishimoto * Sep 12 minutes approved with no changes * OGSA F2F meeting back-to-back with GGF15 schedule OGSA-WG will have F2F meeting on Thursday and Friday. CDDLM-WG have a couple of GGF15 sessions on Thursday. Dejan will talk to Joel to move them to another day. Ellen asks if we adjurn early on Friday to fly out Boston. Agree to adjurn around 3pm on Friday. The following sessions are proposed to have at the F2F. - EMS (CDDLM, ACS, WS-Agreement) - OGSA-naming - information/data model - OGSA-BES - OGSA-data Allen: Talk to DaveB if OGSA-data WG will have a session. Hiro: Send out early draft schedule to the list in order to solicit additional requests and comments. * EMS discussion (CDDLM in EMS architecture) Hiro sent out related materials pointers. Stuart started discussion thread on OGSA EMS sequence diagram (#3). Andrew: CSG generates list of CS. CSG needs information from IS. Jay: In order to run a peace of software (e.g. blast), job should have description of blast, which capability/date it needs. Andrew: Is it by JSDL? Does ACS provide such description? Does CSG understand such description? Ravi: Keep CGS simple. Jay: I see hierarchical problem here. Blast needs some capability, And that capability needs another onesc Ravi: CGS is not an asset management. CGS only handles hardware Specs (like CPU type, memory size, etc) Andrew: First of all, we should agree objects of CSG, CDDLM and ACS... JSDL is more user focus and does not describe how to deploy. Stuart: CDDLM-WG did this scenario walk through almost 2 years before. And then ACS came, and ACS is a contents archive, not CIM database. You should get a template for deployment first. Jay: For example, user wants to run blast with 500 MIPS CPU, with this middleware and that data. Does ACS support such dependency tree? Stuart: ACS is not such active service. You may get template from ACS and grand the template with allocated server name, etc. Ravi: Anyway we need generic archiver (bit bucket). Stuart: SDD (OASIS Solution Deployment Descriptor TC) is overlaping with ACS and CDDLM. Hiro: ACS is archiver for application package. It defines archiver interface specification and format specification. ACS format specification has mondatory/option/extention elements. Jay: there should be offline process to define template for blast and I don't want to tree-search at real time. Also the system should have cache capability: already deploy necessary middleware/library in containers. Dejan: CDDLM spec lacks temporal aspect of components, CDDLM-CDL can only describe dependency of components. Jay: If I want to run BLAST on Linux/Intel but the system does not have one, does some service give us Linux/Intel by provisioning? If ACS is rather bit bucket, does component model work for us. Stuart: NO, CDL language can do all for you. Which service handles stuffed JSDL and CDL? Not CDDLM service. CDDLM service only covers a part of deployment. Whole chain should be EMS. CDDLM is a gear box containing deployment and configuration. Ravi: Is JSDL and CDL overlapped? Does CDDLM service get JSDL document and get grounded one back? Jay: There are a lot of cases, you can choose a container, sometime container already ready to run blast, sometime it need to deploy BLAST application binary, sometime blast + middle ware, sometime blast + middle + os... We should have clean separation between, scheduling, deploy, workload management. Jay: provisioning and scheduling is related but different thing. Provisioning is very constrained by possible translation. Dejan: CDDLM service is not provisioner, it does just configuration change. Jay: It seems to me that CDDLM service has nugget of interesting functionalities. CDDLM service is gear box which passes back EPR ready to run BLAST. EMS team likes the granularity of its component model. Stuart: CDDLM service is not engine, it does just good thing. Ravi: CDDLM is handy man, not control tower. Hiro: At this moment, CDDLM-WG and ACS-WG scope only applications, no more than that (e.g. middleware, OSes). Stuart: CDDLM deploy container + code, thus you can use CDDLM engine to deploy OS but it is not CDDLM-WG's goal. Ravi: I guess EPS makes plan, hand it over to CDDLM to get things done. Jay: there is potentially big overlap between EMS and CDDLM we need more face time to discuss. Dejan: I have a proposal to show working demonstration using glance session. We did once last week. Also, we will have 4 demos at GGF15. There are at least three demo opportunities; 1: next Wednesday 2: following Friday 3: GGF15 * Next step: Hiro: Get editable scenario file from Mike and pass it to Stuart. Stuart: Break down single "provisioner" box into multiple services which CDDLM-WG and ACS-WG are working on. Modifications should be color coded. Dejan: Talk to Ayla when she can make her demo for OGSA team. We will have another joint CDDLM-WG call on next Wednesday (Sept. 21, 5-7pm CDT).

1 0

No RM teleconference on the 20th
by Fred Maciel 20 Sep '05

20 Sep '05

Hi, No RM teleconference on the 20th. I'll post an outline of the profile document later this week. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

OGSA-WG F2F schedule/sessions
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Folks, Lost some e-mails in my transition to my new employment. Could someone forward to the list the latest scheduling information for the upcoming F2F.... Thanks, Tom Senior Technologist, CTO Office EMC²|SMARTS 44 South Broadway 7th Floor White Plains, NY 10601 Email: maguire_tom(a)emc.com <mailto:maguire_tom@emc.com>

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 12 September 2005
by Andreas Savva 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Minutes attached. * Jan 2006 F2F update * Roadmap 1.0 review * Secure Channel 1.0 review Griforge URL: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050912/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 12 September 2005 ======================================= * Participants Jem Treadwell (HP) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Steven Newhouse (OMII) Takuya Mori (NEC) Tom Maguire (EMC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Sep 7 minutes approved with no changes * Jan 2006 F2F update Hiro has reserved a room at the FLA Sunnyvale facility for the week of Jan 16. (Same place used for the August meeting.) * Roadmap 1.0 review Review of draft 21. - The change in Introduction, first paragraph, should be propagated to the Abstract too. - "Use of SAML for OGSI Authorization version 1.0" - Since this is for OGSI it should be dropped from the Roadmap. - Version 2.0 of this document might be based on WSRF but there is no concrete decision by the AuthZ WG yet. (Rechartering discussion still going on.) So such an entry cannot be added now. - Agreed to drop and update Roadmap accordingly (incl. spreadsheet). - "Attributes used in OGSA Authorization" - In its current form it is not a Profile and so should be moved to section 4. - Roadmap title - The title should be changed so as to use OGSA as an adjective - It would also be nice to have OGSA(tm) in the title. - A number of alternatives were proposed and rejected before consensus was reached on "Defining the Grid: A Roadmap for OGSA(tm) Standards version 1.0" - Sec.2.3: The OGSA-Related Naming Guidelines draft was recently made public by the GGF Editor. Section 2.3 should be updated accordingly and include a reference to this note. - Sec.5.3.3. contents should be made similar to 5.2.3 since they are both about the 'same' kind of Profiles. - What are the criteria for including a profile in section 5? - Agreed to add a sentence that Profiles must be based on the OGSA Profile Definition document. - All editing actions to be done by Jem. - Issue final call on the next draft. * Secure Channel 1.0 review Reviewed draft sent out by Takuya. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-securi… - Title: It is different from the title given for this document in the Roadmap document. Agreed to change the title of this draft. - Status: Based on the contents of the Status section of the WSRF BP. Agreed to revise to make more specific to this Profile. - Abstract: Agreed to rewrite to focus on security aspects covered by this Profile. - Introduction: Agreed to rewrite to focus on security aspects of this Profile. - Profile Overview: Agreed to rewrite to focus on security aspects of this Profile. - Relationship with other profiles: Add relationship to WSRF BP and Anonymous Channel Profiles. - Targets: Reduce to the ones used in the document directly (and not just due to cross-referencing from terms in this section) - Conformance claim: Add the general basic security conformance claim URI defined by WSRF BP 1.0. - Sec.3 Security: Break into sections for each referenced profile (BSP and SAML) per WSRF BP. - Use of SSL: Takuya's intention with R0305 is to restrict use of SSL 3.0 ("MUST use TLS") - Agreed to revise R0305 for clarity. - R0301,0302: mandates that the RECEIVER support both TLS and MLS; and SENDER can use either. - Hiro thinks that this sets too high a bar on implementations and should be relaxed for the RECEIVER also. - Takuya thinks that the secure channel profile sets a high bar anyway so this additional requirement is acceptable and is needed to promote interoperability. - No consensus reached. - Takuya will put the issue to the list to get more opinions. * Next call - Secure Channel Profile review to be scheduled for the Monday call.

3 4

OGSA-WG F2F draft schedule in Boston (Oct. 6&7)
by Hiro Kishimoto 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Hi all, Based on the all feedbacks on OGSA-WG F2F meeting which is back-to-back with GGF15, the following is the first-cut draft schedule. Let's discuss at upcoming Monday call. Oct.6 (Thursday) 1. 9-10:30 am: EMS (1) WS-Agreement discussion (GRAAP-WG) 2. 11am-12:30pm: EMS (2) CDDLM & ACS discussion (I) 3. 1:30-3pm: EMS (3) CDDLM & ACS discussion (II) 4. 3:30-5pm: Resource Management, info/data model discussion (Fred & Ellen) 5. 5-6pm: OGSA re-charter draft review Oct. 7 (Friday) 1. 8-9:30am: OGSA-BES session (Andrew) 2. 10-11:30am: OGSA-naming session (Andrew) 3. 12:30-2pm: OGSA-data session (DaveB and Allen) 4. 2-3pm: Wrap-up and next step Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

WSRF Meta-Data Specification
by David Snelling 19 Sep '05

19 Sep '05

Folks, The WSRF TC currently does not have an editor for the WS-ResourceMetadataDescriptor specification. I believe that this specification is important to OGSA, as it captures the management of metadata of properties. For example, communicating default values, providing an indication of how fresh the data is (goodFrom & goodUnitl in OGSI), and whether the property is modifiable or readonly. There is an initial draft available and some agreement on what the direction from here should be, e.g. simplification. See http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/9758/wsrf-WS- ResourceMetadataDescriptor-1.0-draft-01.PDF Options are: 1) Someone from OGSA could join WSRF and volunteer to be the editor. 2) WSRF could transfer responsibility for the spec to OGSA. 3) OGSA could pursue an alternate mechanism for metadata. A similar note has been sent to the WSDM TC. Let me know what OGSA would like to do regarding this development. -- 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 Sept. 19th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 18 Sep '05

18 Sep '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Sept. 19th 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: 0919 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 - Hiro will send out Sept. 14 minutes before the call Agenda bashing 2) GGF15 session and back-to-back F2F update (20 min) According to the tentative GGF15 session schedule, (http://www.ggf.org/gf/session_request/?browse&order=12) OGSA-WG has the following time slots; - OGSA status and direction: Oct. 3 (Mon) 11am-12:30pm - OGSA EMS architecture: Oct 3 (Mon) 4-5:30pm Back-to-back OGSA-WG F2F is on Thur & Fri in walking distance. Hiro will send out proposed schedule before the call. 3) Architecture & Glossary 1.5 discussion (30 min) Please provide first draft of v1.5 text to Andreas ASAP. Andreas and Jem will lead this discussion. 4) Basic Security Profile review (60 min) Takuya will post revised draft before the call. 5) Wrap up AOB <NEXT CALL> Sept. 21 (Wed) EMS discussion (joint CDDLM-WG), GGF15 & F2F preparation Sept. 26 (Mon) OGSA-AuthZ-WG, Information Modeling Sept. 28 (Wed) GGF15 & F2F preparation Oct. 3-6: GGF15 Oct. 6-7: F2F meeting Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Roadmap document submitted to GGF Editor
by Treadwell, Jem 16 Sep '05

16 Sep '05

Hi, Just an FYI that the final Roadmap document has been uploaded to GridForge, and submitted to the GGF Editor for publication. I uploaded version 23, which has all the recent changes marked up, and version 24, which is the same thing but with all changes accepted. The final draft is at http://tinyurl.com/d6k7o. Thanks as always to everyone who provided input and comments! Now stand by for the Architecture and Glossary 1.5... :0) - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

Editable sequence diagram
by Hiro Kishimoto 16 Sep '05

16 Sep '05

Hi Stuart, At the joint CDDLM-WG & OGSA-WG call on Wednesday, I took an action item to give editable EMS scenario #3 sequence diagram file written by Mike to you. I've check Mike's email and I found he uses JUDE, free UML modeling tool, instead of VISIO. Please find his editable file attached. You can download and install JUDE/community software from the following page. https://www.esm.jp/jude-web/index.html Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1

grids and near-grids
by Dennis Gannon 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

hi, a group of us at indiana recently wrote a small paper with a 10,000ft overview of ogsa and a list of grid deployments (not the full survey that craig was looking for). we also look at some things that are often found on grids, but by themselves may not be a grid in the ogsa wordview. we call them gateway frameworks (a term taken from the teragrid project). if you are interested the paper is here: http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/~gannon/SOAs-for-Grids2finalV2.pdf i welcome any comments, esp. if we incorrectly characterized ogsa or one of the grids. dennis

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] BES query
by Ian Foster 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

Dave: My "proposal" was just a request that we have the "resolver EPR" in a separate specification. However, in a bit more detail, here are my opinions in this area: 1) The BES specification should just use EPRs, and not mandate the use of WS-Naming AbstractNames. Rationale: Such a requirement imposes a cost on BES users that they may not want to pay--for a benefit that they may not require. Mandating the use of WS-Naming names imposes an overhead in terms of both time (the cost of generating the AbstractName) and space (the storage that it requires). Yet: a) I may not need to perform the equivalence test that AbstractNames are introduced to allow. (E.g., I haven't thought deeply about this--but I can't recall that we've ever encountered that need.) b) I may need to perform an equivalence test, but not require the "globally unique in time and space" constraint that WS-Naming requires. [This constraint presumably constrains the form of the name that I can create, preventing me, for example, from using user-supplied strings.] c) I may need to perform an equivalence test, but want to do that at a different level: e.g., I may already maintain my own table of jobs for some other purpose, so the WS-Naming AbstractName just replicates unique data that I am already maintaining. If people WANT to pass around EPRs that have these AbstractNames in them (or other similar constructs with different constraints/semantics: e.g., "unique within my VO"), all power to them: but I don't see a reason to require this in BES or any other specification. 2) We should have a separate specification for the "resolver EPR" (and associated Resolver portType) and the "AbstractName" concept. Rationale: The "resolver" EPR is useful in a wide range of situations independent of the specific name syntax and semantics described in WS-Naming. I can imagine lots of places where I might use a resolver EPR. E.g., maybe in the BES case my jobs can migrate, and so I want the EPR that I get back to include a resolver EPR that I can use to determine its new location. But as noted above, I don't necessarily need an AbstractName in the BES case. Similarly for relocatable services: maybe I'll do a metadata query on a registry to get a service EPR (with a resolver EPR in it), then if the service is not where the registry says, contact the resolver to determine its new location. Again, I don't see that I will need AbstractName semantics here. Thus, given that we have two concepts that seem logically quite distinct, and that are certainly distinct in terms of when and how that will be used, I argue that they should be separated. 3) You also asked about three levels and about "human-oriented" vs. "abstract". These concepts are not in the WS-Naming spec, but for what it's worth, I don't see them as useful or relevant here. People use many sorts of "names" of different sorts, and they don't cleanly separate into three levels or into "human-oriented" or "abstract". E.g., if I'm implementing a replica location service, I often want to map first from a "logical file name" to a "site name" and then from there to a "physical location." Furthermore, if you build a system of this sort, you have to allow people to stick whatever names are convenient for them in at each level, because often these names come from elsewhere. Some users may make some of these names "human-oriented", others may not--it shouldn't matter to the service. Regards -- Ian. At 08:58 PM 8/30/2005 +0100, Dave Berry wrote: >Ian, > >I wonder whether you or one of your team could write a note about the >background to your proposals? It would help me to understand how they >fit into the wider architecture. At present I don't feel able to make >an informed contribution to the discussion. > >The current shape of OGSA (if I can call it "current" without biasing >the discussion) has three concepts relevant to this discussion: > >1. Three levels of naming (human-oriented, abstract, and address). >2. An implementation of abstract names as an EPR containing a string >and a resolver. >3. A service interface for BES that takes abstract names as >parameters. > >Each has associated questions raised by your concerns: > >1. Do you want to have fewer levels of naming across the architecture >or are you happy with the three listed here? > >2a. Are you happy that abstract names should be represented in this >way? >2b. What would a "resolver without an abstract name" resolve? When do >you need it in addition to or instead of an abstract name? Does it >fulfill a different function or is there some overlap? > >3. What should the BES interface accept instead of or as well as >abstract names? When do you need this functionality? How should the >interface cope with the different types of entity? > >I can make a guess at part of these answers but I'd rather read an >explanation from the horse's mouth. > >Best wishes, > >Dave. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of >Ian Foster >Sent: 30 August 2005 04:02 >To: Tom Maguire >Cc: Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query > > >I'm interested in that question too. As I've said on quite a few >occasions, >I like the EPR + ResolverEPR (as in the original WS-RenewableReferences) >-- >that is a nice simple mechanism. I don't understand why we can't have >this >in a separate specification. > >Ian. > > >At 09:23 PM 8/29/2005 -0400, Tom Maguire wrote: > >So just to get some nomenclature correct. By WS-Names we mean an EPR > >that > >is profiled to > >contain both a ResolverEPR and an AbstractName. So what do we call an >EPR > >which just > >contains a ResolverEPR? > > > >Tom > > > >Ian Foster wrote: > > > >>I believe that the opinion was expressed by some at the San Diego > >>meeting > >>(e.g., by Steve Tuecke) that WS-Names should NOT be mandated. > >> > >>It certainly defines a nice way of using EPRs that will be useful in > >>some > >>situations. But it surely can't be the case that we always want to > >>mandate this particular set of extensions to EPRs. That requirement > >>certainly doesn't jibe with how we use them in all cases, for example. > >> > >>Ian. > >> > >> > >>At 09:25 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: > >> > >>>All, > >>> > >>>In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. > >>>The > >>>current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out of >the > >>>various function calls. There was the question as to whether EPRs is >all > >>>that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA issue: mainly is > > >>>OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where appropriate. Clearly I think >we > >>>should. But this should be discussed. > >>> > >>>Andrew > >> > >>_______________________________________________________________ > >>Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster > >><http://www.mcs.anl.gov/%7Efoster> > >>Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science > >>Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago > >>Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. > >>Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 > >> Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> > >_______________________________________________________________ >Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster >Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science >Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago >Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. >Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 > Globus Alliance, www.globus.org _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

8 17

Meaning of GRID finally revealed
by Ian Foster 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

(-: From http://www.broad.mit.edu/cgi-bin/news/display_news.cgi?id=159 The Genome Resources in Dengue (GRID) consortium brings together scientists from Broad's Microbial Sequencing Center and the global dengue research community. GRID scientists seek to understand how the virus interacts with its hosts and evolves under pressure from the human immune system. "We intend to illuminate how genomic diversity in the virus arose and how this variability relates to both the virus' evolutionary success and the array of disease outcomes in patients that result from infection," said Matthew Henn of the Broad Institute who spearheaded the formation of GRID and developed this project in collaboration with GRID scientists. _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF14
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

Hiro Unfortunately I have already booked my flight etc... and I can only make Thursday. Would it be possible to have Resource Management (info/data model) on the Thursday? Abdeslem ////////////// -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org]On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 11:52 AM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-bes-wg(a)ggf.org; byteio-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-d-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-rss-wg(a)ggf.org; cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org; OGSA-naming-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-authz(a)ggf.org; acs-wg(a)ggf.org; jsdl-wg(a)gridforum.org; graap-wg(a)gridforum.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF14 Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting. OGSA-WG is planning to have F2F meeting in Boston, back-to-back with GGF14. The meeting will be held on Thursday (9am-6pm) and Friday (8am-3pm) at IBM office in Boston, walking distance from GGF15 venue. The following is tentative agenda items we've listed up at Today's OGSA-WG call. - EMS architecture (CDDLM, ACS, GRAAP, RSS, JSDL, BES) - OGSA-naming session - Resource Management (info/data model) - OGSA-BES session - OGSA-data session (?) If you want to have another session or any specific day/time requirements on any of these sessions, please let me know. I am sorry for this late notice. I am clumsy to organize this F2F meeting since it is our first back-to-back one. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA-WG F2F meeting back-to-back GGF14
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Sep '05

15 Sep '05

Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting. OGSA-WG is planning to have F2F meeting in Boston, back-to-back with GGF14. The meeting will be held on Thursday (9am-6pm) and Friday (8am-3pm) at IBM office in Boston, walking distance from GGF15 venue. The following is tentative agenda items we've listed up at Today's OGSA-WG call. - EMS architecture (CDDLM, ACS, GRAAP, RSS, JSDL, BES) - OGSA-naming session - Resource Management (info/data model) - OGSA-BES session - OGSA-data session (?) If you want to have another session or any specific day/time requirements on any of these sessions, please let me know. I am sorry for this late notice. I am clumsy to organize this F2F meeting since it is our first back-to-back one. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA EMS Sequence Diagrams
by Stuart Schaefer 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Hi, The slides in scenario #3 contain the detail that includes the provisioning steps. I do not see where in any of the sequence diagrams the CSG interacts with the ACS service. Candidate Sets are retrieved from the Execution Planning Services. The EPS works with ACS and should also be linked to Provisioning. If a service is already deployed and can be reused, I would presume that EPS would make this determination. The CDDLM system allows for this. Our presumption in CDDLM is that what is returned from the ACS is a parameterized template, that should be partially resolved during the Candidate Set Generation Phase and Resource Reservation Phase. But many parameters are not known until deployment time or runtime. So, prior to invoking a service container (StartActivityFromJSDL() in the first diagram of scenario #1), the CDDLM service can be used to complete the template resolution, deploy the required systems and prepare the job for execution. Not sure if the sequence diagrams need this level of detail. I think the only operations that are missing in the current CDDLM component model (container) are the commands to start and stop the actual job. We have taken care of all of the deploy, register, undeploy requirements as well as can support the "getState()" query from the Information Services. I would also add that we treat releasing resources and un-deploying configurations as different, environment specific operations. We can contribute the sequence diagrams that were created as part of our work and those created by the ACS team to show the detailed steps of provisioning. Would anyone like to see those? Thanks, Stuart Schaefer

2 1

Proposed agenda for Sept. 14th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 14 Sep '05

14 Sep '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on September 14th 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: 0914 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (if available) Agenda bashing 2) EMS architecture discussion (90 min) CDDLM in EMS architecture > CDDLM: > Dejan/Stuart: Thanks for attending this session. Sorry for any mixup > here. I hope you did get something useful from Jim's presentation. Based > on our discussions around CDDLM, here is what I captured: > > a. Hiro will send out the pointers to the interaction of EMS services > for the 3 scenarios that was developed at the last OGSA F2F. > b. Stuart will take a look and see how the CDDLM architecture would > address these scenarios and start and email thread in the OGSA mail > list. > c. Ravi would collect any difficult or long drawn discussion topics (as > suggested by the respondents) as agenda items for discussion at the next > OGSA telecom. > d. The OGSA WG will study the high level scenarios from CDDLM that were > the model for the CDDLM specs. Need to reconcile these into the EMS/OGSA > space. Meeting summary; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050907/en/1 Related materials; http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/09/msg00032.html Stuart's comments; http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/09/msg00040.html 3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB <NEXT CALL> Sept. 19 (Mon) Architecture & Glossary 1.5, Basic Security Profile Sept. 21 (Wed) GGF15 & F2F preparation Sept. 26 (Mon) OGSA-AuthZ-WG, Information Modeling Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

OGSA Roadmap document - last call for comments
by Treadwell, Jem 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Hi, I've uploaded v22 of the OGSA Roadmap document, with all known issues addressed. You can find it at http://tinyurl.com/9bspt. This is the last call for comments before submission to the GGF Editor for publication. If you have comments, please get them to me by 10 am US Eastern time on Friday, September 16th. If there are no significant comments I plan to submit the document on Friday afternoon. Thanks! - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

No RM teleconference on the 13th
by Fred Maciel 13 Sep '05

13 Sep '05

Hi, No RM teleconference on the 13th -- not enough to discuss (and I'm in a business trip). Sorry for the reversal from my annouced plans. Please use e-mail for any discussions in the next couple of weeks. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

OGSA Security Profile - Secure Channel 1.0
by Takuya Mori 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

Hi, The first draft of "OGSA Security Profile - Secure Channel 1.0" has been uploaded to the grid forge. Document URL: /projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA_Security_Profile_-_Secure_Channel_-_1.0/en/2 I'm sorry for my being late to upload this. (It took even longer than I expected.) ---- Takuya Mori moritaku(a)bx.jp.nec.com / tk-mori(a)isd.nec.co.jp System Platform Software Development Division NEC Corporation, Tokyo Japan

2 2

Update to OGSA 1.5
by Andrew Grimshaw 12 Sep '05

12 Sep '05

All, While explaining OGSA to some very technical folks last week it came up that the 1.0 document does not describe an "object model" so to speak. in other words, what are the "atoms", what is the minimum we assume, etc. For example, we assume: that resources have interfaces, that they process messages, that their behavior may be history dependent, that they are referenced with EPR's, that the atoms may have a unique AbstractName that they may be both servers and clients of other services We also seem to assume that there is some mechanism to get/set some form of metadata (resource properties) We seem to want to be able to find out what interfaces are supported (it is in base profile .. And I think should be in any profile - opinion) We seem to assume a factory pattern - though it is not explicit, and not part of lifetimes I am sure there are others. Comments? Should I write something up along this line for inclusion in the 1.5 document? Andrew

3 2

OGSA v1.5 RM section (3.6) - first cut
by Fred Maciel 10 Sep '05

10 Sep '05

Hi, Here is the first version of the Resource Management section for OGSA v1.5. It has corrections by Steven, Ellen and by me. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ogsa-v15-rm/en/1 Andreas: double-check if there are any pending comments on this section apart from the one on improving the contents of sections 3.6.3 and 3.6.5 (I'll do it as soon as I have some time). Also: please notice that there I re-pasted the picture (it has to be pasted as enhanced metafile) and corrected the WSDM and CMM document references in the end. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Regrets for week of the 12th
by Fred Maciel 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

Hi, I'll be in the EMW conference this week, so I won't be in the conference calls on Monday and Wednesday. On the other hand, we will have the RM design team teleconference on Tuesday, on the usual time slot -- I'll post an announcement soon. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Notes from September 7 telecon
by Treadwell, Jem 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

Hi, the notes from Wednesday's call are available at http://tinyurl.com/bu8ab. These include Mark's notes from the first half of the meeting, my notes from the second half, and the excellent review that Ravi sent immediately after the meeting. Thanks, - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] BES query
by Dave Berry 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Maguire [mailto:tmaguire@us.ibm.com] > Sent: 31 August 2005 14:51 > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query > > > The other major camp places a high priority on implementer and > > application freedom to use different reference formats. It considers > > that references always exist in some implicit relational model > > (maintained by applications, communities, etc.) where interesting or > > important identity attributes are maintained. As such, the > > references themselves do not need to express identity for interop. > > Yes, Distributed Computing 101. If you authoritatively want > to test if two things are the same you MUST ask the things. The W3C Technical Architecture Group have a document called "The Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One" (http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-webarch-20041215/) This states "URIs that are identical, character by character, refer to the same resource". I don't see why this should cause a problem. > The real difficulty for me (and implementers) is the > "universal" context in which these identities live. One of the > reasons that hierarchical namespace lookups exist is because they > are capable of massively scaling. Well, any given URI scheme can be hierarchic, so you could just restrict yourself to such schemes. In any case, it's not clear to me that there's a problem here - isn't this question of scale one of lookup (i.e. registering/discovery)? Abstract names don't address this; all they promise is that if you have two abstract names that are the same, they denote the same thing. You should be able to build a hierarchic lookup system via the resolver EPRs. What does concern me about the three-level naming scheme is what happens if I have one sort of name "in my hand" and the interface that I'm calling wants a different one. This is another way of saying that the naming scheme is core to the entire architecture. I would like to see a document that explains the naming architecture, in much the same way that the W3C document does. In the meantime, my worry is that we seem to be trying to satisfy both camps, and are therefore in danger of building incompatible systems on top of the same specification. Dave.

1 0

Proposed agenda for Sept. 12th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on September 12th 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: 0912 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval Agenda bashing 2) Roadmap document final review (30 min) Hiro has uploaded the revised version (021) to the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadma… Make final call if possible 3) OGSA Basic Security Profile - Secure Channel 1.0 (60 min) Takuya has uploaded the first version of the profile https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA_Security_Profile… 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB <NEXT CALL> Sept. 14 (Wed) EMS architecture (CDDLM-WG joint call) Sept. 19 (Mon) Architecture & Glossary 1.5 Sept. 21 (Wed) GGF15 & F2F preparation Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Roadmap v19 uploaded
by Treadwell, Jem 09 Sep '05

09 Sep '05

Hi, I've uploaded Roadmap v19, and the spreadsheet. This includes my own editing changes from recent calls, the public comment changes, and the changes that Tom & Takuya made. All the referenced-spec tables are dated September 1st. I made some editing changes to Tom's text, and agreed it with Tom. I've also made some editing changes to Takuya's text: Takuy, can you please check this and verify that it's OK - I want to be sure I didn't change the meaning of anything you said. I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition. I'm not sure if that's a change that the group is planning before publication - Takuya, do you know? Also should we be making conformance a criteria for inclusion in section 5? We can discuss this on Wednesday, but if anyone has info or wants to comment by mail, go ahead. Thanks - have a great weekend... - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

5 10

An article that might be of interest
by Ian Foster 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

Describing the Elephant: The Different Faces of IT as Service, ACM Queue, July/August 2005. PDF: http://acmqueue.com/special/ftpfiles/articles/foster.pdf HTML: http://acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=319 Regards -- Ian. _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

1 0

OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 GWD draft
by Hiro Kishimoto 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

Hi all, I've uploaded OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 final draft to the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… It is clean copy for GGF editor submission. We will wait for two basic security profiles and submit all three as batch. Let's rush at them before GGF15! Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RM teleconference minutes -- September 6, 2005
by Fred Maciel 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

Hi, Here are the (quite summarized) minutes. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

EMS related materials
by Hiro Kishimoto 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

Hi all, Thank you very much for joining EMS discussion today. The following is pointers to the materials we've mentioned during the call. Please have a look and post your comments and questions to the ogsa-wg list. We will have another EMS call on next Wednesday (Sept. 14). (1) Jim Pruyne's presentation "WS-Agreement Overview for OGSA" https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/WS-AgreementForOGSAIn… (2) CDDLM foundation document (see section 4 "use cases") http://www.gridforum.org/documents/GFD.50.pdf (3) three EMS sequence diagrams drawn at August F2F https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-08-RM-scena… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-08-RM-scena… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-08-RM-scena… (4) Basic EM profile proposal at GGF13 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF13_basic_EM_profil… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ggf13-minutes-session… Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RE: EMS session agenda (Re: Proposed agenda for Sept. 7th call)
by Subramaniam, Ravi 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

Hi, Here is a synopsis of the agreed next steps from today's OGSA telephone meeting. Attendees, please review and update as required. GRAAP: Jim: Thanks again for the introduction to WS-Agreement today. We appreciate your taking time to engage. I would like to reiterate the couple of areas of focus we had discussed at the F2F a. Understand the domain terms that may apply in agreements in a specific EMS scenario (BES?) b. Look at how one might apply WS-Agreement to the multi-entity (for a single operation) scenario that is EMS. (Cluster girds have a single entity (scheduler?) to handle all resources and requests and so that could fit the two party model of WS-Agreement but I was thinking of EMS outside of this space where responsibility is distributed). CDDLM: Dejan/Stuart: Thanks for attending this session. Sorry for any mixup here. I hope you did get something useful from Jim's presentation. Based on our discussions around CDDLM, here is what I captured: a. Hiro will send out the pointers to the interaction of EMS services for the 3 scenarios that was developed at the last OGSA F2F. b. Stuart will take a look and see how the CDDLM architecture would address these scenarios and start and email thread in the OGSA mail list. c. Ravi would collect any difficult or long drawn discussion topics (as suggested by the respondents) as agenda items for discussion at the next OGSA telecom. d. The OGSA WG will study the high level scenarios from CDDLM that were the model for the CDDLM specs. Need to reconcile these into the EMS/OGSA space. We will *not* have a parallel small team meeting this week but will schedule over the longer term (beyond GGF15) to do so as an ongoing activity as we work to resolve the approaches. Speaking for myself right now: I would suggest that an output of this activity be the OGSA EMS diagram fleshed out with the provisioning services from CDDLM (this could be either a blowing up of the provisioning box or a refactoring that may be dictated by this joint activity). Thoughts? OGSA: Anyone on the call today, please let me know if I have missed any of the outcomes of the discussion here. Any other suggestions and topics for discussions and/or focus with CDDLM and GRAAP are welcome. Thanks! Ravi

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] Update to OGSA 1.5
by pete＠ziu.net 08 Sep '05

08 Sep '05

Andrew, Good idea. The most commonly accepted language for design within the our arena is UML. I think the exercise we performed at the face2face creating sequence diagrams for the various EMS scenarios proved to be very valuable. Perhaps some UML exercises that are larger in scope could be very productive. Other diagram types, and other design areas of the grid. I would be more than happy to participate in such an effort. I think a very good design area to document would be security as well. Pete Ziu 571.235.0208 (c) mailto:pete@ziu.net (h) mailto:5712350208@tmomail.net (sms) "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu> Sent by: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org 09/07/2005 06:42 PM To "'Ogsa-Wg'" <ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org> cc bcc Subject [ogsa-wg] Update to OGSA 1.5 All, While explaining OGSA to some very technical folks last week it came up that the 1.0 document does not describe an “object model” so to speak… in other words, what are the “atoms”, what is the minimum we assume, etc. For example, we assume: that resources have interfaces, that they process messages, that their behavior may be history dependent, that they are referenced with EPR’s, that the atoms may have a unique AbstractName that they may be both servers and clients of other services We also seem to assume that there is some mechanism to get/set some form of metadata (resource properties) We seem to want to be able to find out what interfaces are supported (it is in base profile …. And I think should be in any profile ? opinion) We seem to assume a factory pattern ? though it is not explicit, and not part of lifetimes I am sure there are others. Comments? Should I write something up along this line for inclusion in the 1.5 document? Andrew

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] UPDATED - Proposed agenda for Sept. 7th call
by Subramaniam, Ravi 07 Sep '05

07 Sep '05

Hi all, Please see the update to the EMS section of this agenda. This is based on the strawman from Hiro and conversations with Andrew. Sorry for the late update. Ravi -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 11:46 PM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Sept. 7th call Hi all, This Monday is US Labor day and we won't have a call. The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Sept. 7th. 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: 0907 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (August 31st) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050831/e n/1 Winter F2F meeting update OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 final call Agenda bashing 2) EMS architecture discussion (90 min) - WS-agreement overview (15-20 minutes) - Includes discussion of the key elements of WS-Agreement - How GRAAP sees WS-Agreement applied to EMS (including and beyond job instantiation) - Applicability in other areas of OGSA (may need a follow up conversation based on time) - Open discussion (10-15 minutes) - Technical based on the material above - How do we work together? - Next step (5-10 minutes) From F2F meeting minutes: > - Agreed to define one or two scenarios and go through them to > explore interactions between the various 'pieces' > - Volunteers: Andrew, Jay, Ravi, Stuart, Mike > - Goal to present something by GGF15. But need to produce > something before that. > - Agreed to continue the work on the OGSA teleconferences. From Toshi Nakata @ GRAAP-WG > We in GRAAP feel that WS-Agreement has a very important role in the > OGSA world. (I hope you have that perspective also.) Since the newer > draft of the WS-Agrement is close to the 2nd public review, > we were wondering how we should discuss the role of WS-Agreement in > OGSA esp. in OGSA-EMS. 3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Sept. 12 (Mon) Basic security profile, roadmap document Sept. 14 (Wed) Architecture 1.5 (Profile Definition?) Sept. 19 (Mon) Information Modeling ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA-WG and fellow WG Winter F2F Survey
by Hiro Kishimoto 07 Sep '05

07 Sep '05

Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting. OGSA-WG and fellow WGs are planning to have Winter F2F meeting in December or January. At the OGSA-WG F2F meeting in week before last, I took action item to ask all expected attendees for their availability for Winter F2F meeting. Please take the time to fill in the following online survey by next Monday (September 5th). We hope to decide date and city next week. Post the survey on a Web site - use this URL: http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224LBPWYVUT Thanks in advance, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 3

RE: [ogsa-wg] RM teleconference reminder - September 6, 2005
by Fred Maciel 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Hi yet again, > I meant September 6th, not 5th. Sorry. And on the top of that, I got the times wrong (it's in the usual time slot, 11AM Pacific). Here is the correct announcement. Sorry again. This is a reminder of the Resource Management design team teleconference next Tuesday (September 6, 2005). This teleconference will be mostly *internal* discussions within the *core* team, which means that if you are just observing the work you could skip this one -- on the OGSA-WG teleconference on Wednesday I'll report what was discussed. The agenda is: - review what we achieved at the face-to-face (and what we didn't achieve yet) - review what homework we have from the face-to-face, and divide and schedule the work. - perhaps review Ellen and Steven's first draft of the resource management section for the OGSA 1.5 spec (still being reviewed within the Design Team). Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2005, 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

1 0

RM teleconference reminder - September 5, 2005
by Fred Maciel 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Hi, This is a reminder of the Resource Management design team teleconference next Tuesday (September 5, 2005). This teleconference will be mostly *internal* discussions within the *core* team, which means that if you are just observing the work you could skip this one -- on the OGSA-WG teleconference on Wednesday I'll report what was discussed. The agenda is: - review what we achieved at the face-to-face (and what we didn't achieve yet) - review what homework we have from the face-to-face, and divide and schedule the work. - perhaps review Ellen and Steven's first draft of the resource management section for the OGSA 1.5 spec (still being reviewed within the Design Team). Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2005, at the following times: - 07:00-08:00 US Pacific (GMT - 7) - 08:00-09:00 US Mountain (GMT - 6) - 09:00-10:00 US Central (GMT - 5) - 10:00-11:00 US Eastern (GMT - 4) - 14:00-15:00 GMT - 15:00-16:00 UK (GMT + 1) - 16:00-17:00 Central Europe (GMT + 2) - 23:00-24:00 Japan (GMT + 9, following day) 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

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] RM teleconference reminder - September 6, 2005
by Fred Maciel 06 Sep '05

06 Sep '05

Hi again, I meant September 6th, not 5th. Sorry. Regards, Fred Maciel

1 0

Proposed agenda for Sept. 7th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 05 Sep '05

05 Sep '05

Hi all, This Monday is US Labor day and we won't have a call. The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Sept. 7th. 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: 0907 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (August 31st) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050831/en/1 Winter F2F meeting update OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 final call Agenda bashing 2) EMS architecture discussion (90 min) Andrew and Ravi will send out detailed agenda before the call. From F2F meeting minutes: > - Agreed to define one or two scenarios and go through them to > explore interactions between the various 'pieces' > - Volunteers: Andrew, Jay, Ravi, Stuart, Mike > - Goal to present something by GGF15. But need to produce > something before that. > - Agreed to continue the work on the OGSA teleconferences. From Toshi Nakata @ GRAAP-WG > We in GRAAP feel that WS-Agreement has a very important role in the > OGSA world. (I hope you have that perspective also.) Since the newer > draft of the WS-Agrement is close to the 2nd public review, > we were wondering how we should discuss the role of WS-Agreement in > OGSA esp. in OGSA-EMS. 3) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Sept. 12 (Mon) Basic security profile, roadmap document Sept. 14 (Wed) Architecture 1.5 (Profile Definition?) Sept. 19 (Mon) Information Modeling ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA WSRF Basic Profile v1.0 Final call
by Tom Maguire 03 Sep '05

03 Sep '05

A clean copy of the OGSA WSRF Basic Profile v1.0 has be uploaded to Gridforge. Please send any comments you may have on this refactored profile (removal of security sections to allow for better composition) to the mailing list. I would like to get a rough consensus on the Wednesday call 9/7. Thanks, Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

Implied Abstract Name Profile
by Frank Siebenlist 02 Sep '05

02 Sep '05

I'd like to make a case for the definition of an "Implied Abstract Name" profile for ws-addressing. By claiming to adhere to this profile, the EPR-minter would indicate that care has been taken with the construction of the EPR's address to provide it enough uniqueness properties such that it can be used as a "name" by itself. The observation is that if an EPR-minter can determine that the reference refers to a uniquely identifiable resource such that an "abstract name" can be constructed, then in many cases it could also add enough uniqueness properties to the EPR's address such that the address itself could be used as an alternative abstract name. For example, if a uuid could be generated as an abstract name, then the implementation may also be able to choose to base the dispatching information in the address' URI on that same uuid, which would give the address's URI and the abstract name's URI equivalent uniqueness properties. Now, in some cases, the resource identifiable information is not present in the address value, but is somewhere embedded in the optional reference parameters. Again, the EPR-minter may have a choice to make that resource identifier information for the reference parameters just as "unique" as the equivalent abstract name it could create. In those cases, one could standardize a recipe to construct a unique "implied abstract name" from the address and the reference parameter values. For example, one could concatenate the address and the base64-blob of the canonicalized reference parameters to yield a URI-value for the implied abstract name. (Or one could concatenate the address and the digest value of that base64 blob if you care about the length of the value... at the expense of being able to reconstruct the address+reference-parameters from that implied abstract name...) In summary, if the EPR-minter is able to generate a abstract name value for a resource, then in many implementations, the EPR-minter could also generate an address (+reference parameters) that would yield an implied abstract name with the same uniqueness properties. The EPR-minter could communicate the adherence to this "Implied Abstract Name" profile by labeling the EPR somehow. The spec shows that one can add attributes to the address element: /wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:Address/@{any} such that we could label such an address element with an attribute that would tell you the profile that this address value adheres to, like implied-abstract-name="true". Tom Maguire suggested (and prefers) an approach that attachs a claim (wsi:claim) to a wsdl element (likely a port or binding). wsi:claim="http://example.org/ImpliedAbstractName There may be other (better) ways... Now... why would this be any better or worse or why do we need this at all? The abstract name as it is defined now in the ws-naming spec is part of the EPR, but does not get communicated on the wire. In other words, once the soap message is constructed from the EPR according to the ws-addressing recipe, we loose the abstract name as it doesn't get mapped into the message header content. In other words, from the header information we can not derive any unique identifier for the resource this message is meant for. In order to enforce resource specific policy on a soap message or to write traceable information in audit logs, we somehow have to obtain a unique identifier for the resource. In some cases, and certainly when we're inside of the dispatching service itself, we can assume that that application can find the mapping back to the abstract name that was issued in the EPR. However, that mapping is application specific logic and therefor not easily accessible from within the runtime where transparent policy enforcement is applied. Also, any soap-routing intermediate won't have access to the abstract name. Hopefully, these example make the case for such an "Implied Abstract Name" profile, as it would allow one to obtain a unique identifier for the resource from a message that was generated from a profile compliant EPR. Note that this profile would not make the abstract name element obsolete as for resources that change their reference over their lifetime one needs a stable resolvable name. Having both an abstract name and an implied abstract name would allow one also to keep mapping tables outside of the EPR-minting applications, which is needed to correlate policy and audit trails for the same resources. --- If the requirement for an implied abstract name and the need for an associated profile hold water, then it may be appropriate for the ws-naming wg to add such a profile definition to its charter. Regards, Frank. -- Frank Siebenlist franks(a)mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory

2 1

Updated Roadmap document and Spreadsheet posted to gridforge
by Takuya Mori 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

Hi All, I made some updates on the roadmap document for the OGSA-Authz-WG documents as well as the standard spread sheet. The changes are: 1. to move the sections to chapter 5, because the both documents can be classified as recommended profile documents, 2. to update the title of the use of SAML document for authz, 3. to update the spread sheet fot the change of the title of the document, and, 4. someother changes of the descriptions The following is the url for them. Document Title: draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap Document URL: /projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap/en/18 Document Title: ogsa-referenced-standards: Document URL: /projects/ogsa-wg/document/ogsa-referenced-standards/en/12 Thanks, Takuya

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 31 August 2005
by Andreas Savva 01 Sep '05

01 Sep '05

** NOTE: There is no call next Monday, Sep 5. ** Minutes attached. Gridforge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050831/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 31 August 2005 ==================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Tom Maguire (IBM) Takuya Mori (NEC) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes of August 29 approved without changes * Dec/Jan F2F update Hiro posted a new survey yesterday. So far there were 11 responses; a couple were anonymous and will be ignored. Overall it looks like the middle of Jan is preferred at the moment. http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/08/msg00117.html * GGF15 update - Requested 2 slots - Opening is on Monday, and there are WG sessions over 4 days - Trying to arrange for the OGSA Overview session to be immediately afterwards the Opening session * OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 review - Reviewed new version posted by Tom. - Section 8: this is the security text worked on during the last call. - It allows for the definition of multiple security profiles. Also multiple claims can be attached to a wsdl:portType so multiple (security) profiles can be used. - The minimal requirement is that the OGSABasicSecurity-1.0 claim must be present. - Tom to change the name of section 8.1.1; make it fit the text - The 'wsi' namespace is not in the namespace table. Tom to add. - Should there be a reference to wsi:claim in 2.2? - Not necessary but added explanatory text on 'attachment mechanisms' to line 164. - Other changes included namespace changes; remove dates form namespace URIs. - Tom to upload a clean copy and do a final call, possibly early next week. * Roadmap 1.0 review - Tom has completed both basic security profile entries and related changes. - Takuya to do an update for the OGSA AuthZ documents and send to Jem within the day. ** Trademark usage discussion - There has been an offline discussion on OGSA trademark and service mark usage, involving Greg Newby, Hiro, Tom, Jem, Andreas. - So far agreed to put the trademark mark on first use of /OGSA/ - And add Trademarks section on the first page (under the Copyright section) - Has GGF decided to trademark the OGSA phrase as well? And what is the status of the registration? - Hiro only knows that a trademark and service mark is being acquired for /OGSA/ only - Consensus to also try and trademark the phrase as well Action: Hiro will ask GGF to trademark the phrase as well. Also to register these not just in the US but in the UK and Japan also. - Use trademark as an adjective not as a noun - E.g., 'Oreo cookies' not 'Oreos' - The problem is that for the Roadmap there are 300+ instances of /OGSA/ so it is a lot of work to try and fix everything right now. - Is it worth it at this moment, especially for an already finished document given that there are no concrete GGF guidelines that can be expected to be enforced for all GGF documents (e.g., by the GGF Editor)? - Consensus is not yet, at least not for finished documents. - Ask the GFSG for guidelines? - Yes, ask GFSG/Legal Dept. for guidelines Action: Hiro to talk to Steve Crumb again about formal guidelines. - In summary, the tentative approach agreed on the call is - First use of OGSA should have TM (or SM) - Add a Trademarks section after the Copyright section - Beyond that, 'Use OGSA as an adjective' is left up to the individual editors until there is a firm GGF guideline. - Should the BP be changed too? Yes, as described above. Action: Jem will do a final call for the Roadmap 1.0 document on the list when the document is finished. - There is a new post-v1 Roadmap tracker. It has been set up to send mail to the list on new submissions only. * Next call - No call on Monday - Wednesday is EMS call (and WS-Agreement) - Need to refine agenda for that call - Andrew will talk with Ravi and prepare an agenda for that call

1 0

Updated Roadmap document and Spreadsheet posted to gridforge for tonights call<EOM>
by Tom Maguire 31 Aug '05

31 Aug '05

Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

RE: [ogsa-wg] BES query
by Dave Berry 31 Aug '05

31 Aug '05

Ian, As always, you raise interesting questions. Some I want to ask you about further; some I would like to see other people address. However, I was surprised by your reply about the "three levels" of naming. While WS-naming doesn't include these concepts, the OGSA v1.0 document does. They also form the basis of the GFS working group work that led to RNS and WS-Naming, and are important parts of EDG/EGEE, for example. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with it but I'm surprised that this issue wasn't resolved earlier. I'm also surprised that you give name equivalence as the main characteristic of an abstract name. I thought the main characteristic was that it was a persistent name that does not specify a particular location. (Although this could be a property of the WS-Name package rather than the string - see below). I'm afraid I don't follow your example of a file replication system. Clearly we need to name the separate entities involved and there may be many levels of indirection. I don't see why that is an argument against the three level approach. We don't need to have one "level" of name for each "level" of indirection. Turning to a question I'd like to see other people address: Ian's point about uniqueness within a particular context makes good sense to me. If a WS-Name is a combination of an arbitrary string and a resolver, isn't it the combination of the two that should be globally unique? E.g. if one WS-Name resolves "foo" to my hard drive and another resolves "foo" to Ian's, the two WS-Name packages themselves are still globally unique. I suppose this is why Ian took name equivalence as a key property. Do we perhaps need a scope notion in WS-Names, so that they may be valid within a VO, or globally unique, or have some other scope? I guess the counter to this is whether it is really such an imposition to create a globally unique string, given that UUIDs seem to do the job. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: 31 August 2005 00:35 To: Dave Berry; Tom Maguire Cc: Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] BES query Dave: My "proposal" was just a request that we have the "resolver EPR" in a separate specification. However, in a bit more detail, here are my opinions in this area: 1) The BES specification should just use EPRs, and not mandate the use of WS-Naming AbstractNames. Rationale: Such a requirement imposes a cost on BES users that they may not want to pay--for a benefit that they may not require. Mandating the use of WS-Naming names imposes an overhead in terms of both time (the cost of generating the AbstractName) and space (the storage that it requires). Yet: a) I may not need to perform the equivalence test that AbstractNames are introduced to allow. (E.g., I haven't thought deeply about this--but I can't recall that we've ever encountered that need.) b) I may need to perform an equivalence test, but not require the "globally unique in time and space" constraint that WS-Naming requires. [This constraint presumably constrains the form of the name that I can create, preventing me, for example, from using user-supplied strings.] c) I may need to perform an equivalence test, but want to do that at a different level: e.g., I may already maintain my own table of jobs for some other purpose, so the WS-Naming AbstractName just replicates unique data that I am already maintaining. If people WANT to pass around EPRs that have these AbstractNames in them (or other similar constructs with different constraints/semantics: e.g., "unique within my VO"), all power to them: but I don't see a reason to require this in BES or any other specification. 2) We should have a separate specification for the "resolver EPR" (and associated Resolver portType) and the "AbstractName" concept. Rationale: The "resolver" EPR is useful in a wide range of situations independent of the specific name syntax and semantics described in WS-Naming. I can imagine lots of places where I might use a resolver EPR. E.g., maybe in the BES case my jobs can migrate, and so I want the EPR that I get back to include a resolver EPR that I can use to determine its new location. But as noted above, I don't necessarily need an AbstractName in the BES case. Similarly for relocatable services: maybe I'll do a metadata query on a registry to get a service EPR (with a resolver EPR in it), then if the service is not where the registry says, contact the resolver to determine its new location. Again, I don't see that I will need AbstractName semantics here. Thus, given that we have two concepts that seem logically quite distinct, and that are certainly distinct in terms of when and how that will be used, I argue that they should be separated. 3) You also asked about three levels and about "human-oriented" vs. "abstract". These concepts are not in the WS-Naming spec, but for what it's worth, I don't see them as useful or relevant here. People use many sorts of "names" of different sorts, and they don't cleanly separate into three levels or into "human-oriented" or "abstract". E.g., if I'm implementing a replica location service, I often want to map first from a "logical file name" to a "site name" and then from there to a "physical location." Furthermore, if you build a system of this sort, you have to allow people to stick whatever names are convenient for them in at each level, because often these names come from elsewhere. Some users may make some of these names "human-oriented", others may not--it shouldn't matter to the service. Regards -- Ian. At 08:58 PM 8/30/2005 +0100, Dave Berry wrote: Ian, I wonder whether you or one of your team could write a note about the background to your proposals? It would help me to understand how they fit into the wider architecture. At present I don't feel able to make an informed contribution to the discussion. The current shape of OGSA (if I can call it "current" without biasing the discussion) has three concepts relevant to this discussion: 1. Three levels of naming (human-oriented, abstract, and address). 2. An implementation of abstract names as an EPR containing a string and a resolver. 3. A service interface for BES that takes abstract names as parameters. Each has associated questions raised by your concerns: 1. Do you want to have fewer levels of naming across the architecture or are you happy with the three listed here? 2a. Are you happy that abstract names should be represented in this way? 2b. What would a "resolver without an abstract name" resolve? When do you need it in addition to or instead of an abstract name? Does it fulfill a different function or is there some overlap? 3. What should the BES interface accept instead of or as well as abstract names? When do you need this functionality? How should the interface cope with the different types of entity? I can make a guess at part of these answers but I'd rather read an explanation from the horse's mouth. Best wishes, Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: 30 August 2005 04:02 To: Tom Maguire Cc: Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query I'm interested in that question too. As I've said on quite a few occasions, I like the EPR + ResolverEPR (as in the original WS-RenewableReferences) -- that is a nice simple mechanism. I don't understand why we can't have this in a separate specification. Ian. At 09:23 PM 8/29/2005 -0400, Tom Maguire wrote: >So just to get some nomenclature correct. By WS-Names we mean an EPR >that >is profiled to >contain both a ResolverEPR and an AbstractName. So what do we call an EPR >which just >contains a ResolverEPR? > >Tom > >Ian Foster wrote: > >>I believe that the opinion was expressed by some at the San Diego >>meeting >>(e.g., by Steve Tuecke) that WS-Names should NOT be mandated. >> >>It certainly defines a nice way of using EPRs that will be useful in >>some >>situations. But it surely can't be the case that we always want to >>mandate this particular set of extensions to EPRs. That requirement >>certainly doesn't jibe with how we use them in all cases, for example. >> >>Ian. >> >> >>At 09:25 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: >> >>>All, >>> >>>In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. >>>The >>>current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out of the >>>various function calls. There was the question as to whether EPRs is all >>>that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA issue: mainly is >>>OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where appropriate. Clearly I think we >>>should. But this should be discussed. >>> >>>Andrew >> >>_______________________________________________________________ >>Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster >><http://www.mcs.anl.gov/%7Efoster <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster> > >>Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science >>Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago >>Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. >>Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 >> Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> <http://www.globus.org/> _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/>

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 31st call
by Andrea Westerinen (andreaw) 31 Aug '05

31 Aug '05

Hiro, Do you know when the resource management work will be discussed? It seems to have fallen off the agenda for today (which is ok) and I would like to block my calendar to participate. Thanks, Andrea > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:58 AM > To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 31st call > > Hi all, > > The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 31st. > 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: 0831 > See more explanation: > http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg > 00077.html > > 1) Early discussion (20 min) > Note taker assignment > Roll call > Telecon minutes approval (if available) > Dec or Jan F2F date/venue > Agenda bashing > > 2) Roadmap document review (60 min) > > - I've responded to all public comments. > > - Andreas created a new tracker for the next version. I've > opened two > > trackers based on public comments, and moved one that we > deferred in > > 1.0. > > - I've made all the editing changes except for the items below. > > - Waiting for new/updated sections from Tom & Takuya. > > - I haven't yet updated the tables from the spreadsheet - > I'll do that > > once the final sections are in place, to make all the dates > consistent. > > - I've uploaded the latest version of the standards spreadsheet to > > Gridforge, though it will need updating to add the B/P breakout > > documents > > > > On Wednesday's call we need to discuss use of OGSA as a trademark, > > which might result in more editing to make our use consistent. > > 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review (30 min) > Tom has uploaded revised draft to GridForge. > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-gg > f-ogsa-wsrf-basic-profile/en/35 > > 4) Wrap up (10 min) > AOB > > <NEXT CALL> > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > -- > Hiro Kishimoto >

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 29 August 2005
by Andreas Savva 31 Aug '05

31 Aug '05

Minutes attached. Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050829/en/1 -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - 29 August 2005 ==================================== * Participants Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Latha Srinivasan (HP) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Takuya Mori (NEC) Tom Maguire (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Aug. 10 Teleconference Minutes: approved with no changes * OGSA Roadmap - Should have an OGSA trademark usage discussion - Tom will have updated sections for Jem by next call * August F2F evaluation - Consensus on the call that the meetings went well. - Probably set up the Dec/Jan one along the same lines - There is a GFSG meeting in January which some members will have to attend. Action: Hiro to do the usual survey for time/place. ** F2F minutes approval Andreas to do all necessary modifications. *** Day 1 - Attendee corrections: - Von's affiliation is NCSA - Add Ravi to participants (As a followup to the discussion Hiro has asked Frank to give the group information on security guidelines. Takuya to follow up with Frank.) Minutes approved with minor changes. *** Day 2 am: approved with no changes *** Day 2 pm - Add Component model to CDDLM documents list - Application Description should be Application Archive - "AA are the contents ..." should be revised to "AA provides the...." - "An archive description ..." should be changed ... to "i.e., dependencies. " - Minutes approved with minor modifications. *** Day 3 am - Change SOAP text: SOAP 1.2 is not compliant with BP 1.1 while SOAP 1.1 is. - Text starting with "As we move to implementing ..." should be moved under a different topic. Check meeting agenda for topic name. - Minutes approved with minor modifications *** Day 3 pm - Hiro to upload his presentation (re-charter) - Hiro to ask Steven N for his Glue presentation - Add Ravi to the attendees - Minutes approved with minor modifications *** Day 4 am - Approved with no changes *** Day 4 pm - Approved with no changes *** Day 5 am - Approved with no changes ** Other issues - Discussed and agreed that agenda topics should also be tracked. There is an existing tracker and the Chairs and Secretary will share the work of updating it. - Hiro to check what topics should be tracked from the minutes * Teleconference schedule review - 8/31 - Roadmap added - 9/5 - Labour day; no call - 9/7 - EMS discussion - Confirmed that Ravi can make it - Need to narrow down the agenda a bit more and decide if there is enough time to tackle all topics. - Hiro to follow up with chairs. - Architecture 1.5 moved to 9/14 - Resource information model changed to information model Action: Hiro will upload a revised version. * OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review - Major change is the removal/update of security section - Agreement at the F2F was to take the security sections/appendices out, require at least one security profile and then define more than one. - Changes to bring BP in line with the above. Remove list of security related profiles in Abstract - Removed section 8 (security) - Deleted normative and non-normative security related references - Changed appendices - Removed the EndpointKeyInfo element from schema. It now has to be defined in the appropriate security profile. - The referenced specifications table at the end needs update ** Security update - A conformant OGSA Basic Security 1.0 profile should expose a well known conformance claim, defined in wsdl - It is ok to have multiple claims - There MUST be a claim attachment. So it is a stronger statement than the WS-I profile claim attachement. - Have to state where it is attached (WS-I gives a choice of locations) - Agreed to attach to wsdl:portType (which is one of the WS-I choices) - Should the security profile be discussed in section 8 or in 1.2, or both? - Since the security profile(s) is not written yet it not clear how to discuss the relationship. In any case there is no restriction to stating profile relationships only in 1.2. - Agreed that some description should be added to section 1.2, with details in section 8 - Is claim attachment sufficient explanation or should there be more discussion on the requirements that a security profile should fulfill? - Security profile as envisaged right now only really covers secure communication - Agreed that it is not possible to describe the requirements such a profile has to satisfy at this point; besides the generic claim that the profile is compliant to the OGSA basic security 1.0 claim. - Each conformant security profile should define two conformance URIs: The well known conformance claim defined in the Basic Profile and an additional more specific claim to that security profile. - Agreed to change all namespace uris; delete the dates. Action: Tom to post revised versoin after the call - Ideally the BP should be submited together with the security profiles. - Tom and Takuya to try and coordinate to get all documents out at the same time (if possible) Action: Hiro to arrange for additional time slots on calls as needed for reviewing the security profiles. * Next call - It is not possible to discuss information modelling this week - Fred is planning to do an internal call next week tuesday. - Agreed to re-schedule for after Sep 19. - Roadmap and BP review for the next call.

1 0

Proposed agenda for Aug. 31st call
by Hiro Kishimoto 31 Aug '05

31 Aug '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 31st. 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: 0831 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (if available) Dec or Jan F2F date/venue Agenda bashing 2) Roadmap document review (60 min) > - I've responded to all public comments. > - Andreas created a new tracker for the next version. I've opened two > trackers based on public comments, and moved one that we deferred in > 1.0. > - I've made all the editing changes except for the items below. > - Waiting for new/updated sections from Tom & Takuya. > - I haven't yet updated the tables from the spreadsheet - I'll do that > once the final sections are in place, to make all the dates consistent. > - I've uploaded the latest version of the standards spreadsheet to > Gridforge, though it will need updating to add the B/P breakout > documents > > On Wednesday's call we need to discuss use of OGSA as a trademark, which > might result in more editing to make our use consistent. 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review (30 min) Tom has uploaded revised draft to GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB <NEXT CALL> ---- Hiro Kishimoto -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query
by Hiro Kishimoto 31 Aug '05

31 Aug '05

Tom's email bounced. -- Hiro Kishimoto Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:23:58 -0400 From: Tom Maguire <tom.maguire(a)suscom.net> To: Ian Foster <foster(a)mcs.anl.gov> Cc: Andrew Grimshaw <grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu>, ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query So just to get some nomenclature correct. By WS-Names we mean an EPR that is profiled to contain both a ResolverEPR and an AbstractName. So what do we call an EPR which just contains a ResolverEPR? Tom Ian Foster wrote: >> I believe that the opinion was expressed by some at the San Diego >> meeting (e.g., by Steve Tuecke) that WS-Names should NOT be mandated. >> >> It certainly defines a nice way of using EPRs that will be useful in >> some situations. But it surely can't be the case that we always want >> to mandate this particular set of extensions to EPRs. That requirement >> certainly doesn't jibe with how we use them in all cases, for example. >> >> Ian. >> >> >> At 09:25 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: >> > >>>> All, >>>> >>>> In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. >>>> The current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out >>>> of the various function calls. There was the question as to whether >>>> EPRs is all that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA >>>> issue: mainly is OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where >>>> appropriate. Clearly I think we should. But this should be discussed. >>>> >>>> Andrew > >> >> _______________________________________________________________ >> Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster >> <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/%7Efoster> >> Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science >> Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago >> Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. >> Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 >> Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> >>

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] BES query
by Andrew Grimshaw 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

Tom, As written in the current DRAFT - a WS-Name is an EPR that MUST contain an AbstractName and MAY contain a ResolverEPR. We do not have a "name" at this point for an EPR that has a ResolverEPR only. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Tom Maguire [mailto:tom.maguire@suscom.net] Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 9:24 PM To: Ian Foster Cc: Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query So just to get some nomenclature correct. By WS-Names we mean an EPR that is profiled to contain both a ResolverEPR and an AbstractName. So what do we call an EPR which just contains a ResolverEPR? Tom Ian Foster wrote: > I believe that the opinion was expressed by some at the San Diego > meeting (e.g., by Steve Tuecke) that WS-Names should NOT be mandated. > > It certainly defines a nice way of using EPRs that will be useful in > some situations. But it surely can't be the case that we always want > to mandate this particular set of extensions to EPRs. That requirement > certainly doesn't jibe with how we use them in all cases, for example. > > Ian. > > > At 09:25 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: > >> All, >> >> In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. >> The current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out >> of the various function calls. There was the question as to whether >> EPRs is all that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA >> issue: mainly is OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where >> appropriate. Clearly I think we should. But this should be discussed. >> >> Andrew > > _______________________________________________________________ > Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster > <http://www.mcs.anl.gov/%7Efoster> > Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science > Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago > Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. > Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 > Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> >

1 0

BES query
by Andrew Grimshaw 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

All, In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. The current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out of the various function calls. There was the question as to whether EPR's is all that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA issue: mainly is OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where appropriate. Clearly I think we should. But this should be discussed. Andrew

3 3

RE: [ogsa-wg] BES query
by Dave Berry 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

Ian, I wonder whether you or one of your team could write a note about the background to your proposals? It would help me to understand how they fit into the wider architecture. At present I don't feel able to make an informed contribution to the discussion. The current shape of OGSA (if I can call it "current" without biasing the discussion) has three concepts relevant to this discussion: 1. Three levels of naming (human-oriented, abstract, and address). 2. An implementation of abstract names as an EPR containing a string and a resolver. 3. A service interface for BES that takes abstract names as parameters. Each has associated questions raised by your concerns: 1. Do you want to have fewer levels of naming across the architecture or are you happy with the three listed here? 2a. Are you happy that abstract names should be represented in this way? 2b. What would a "resolver without an abstract name" resolve? When do you need it in addition to or instead of an abstract name? Does it fulfill a different function or is there some overlap? 3. What should the BES interface accept instead of or as well as abstract names? When do you need this functionality? How should the interface cope with the different types of entity? I can make a guess at part of these answers but I'd rather read an explanation from the horse's mouth. Best wishes, Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster Sent: 30 August 2005 04:02 To: Tom Maguire Cc: Andrew Grimshaw; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query I'm interested in that question too. As I've said on quite a few occasions, I like the EPR + ResolverEPR (as in the original WS-RenewableReferences) -- that is a nice simple mechanism. I don't understand why we can't have this in a separate specification. Ian. At 09:23 PM 8/29/2005 -0400, Tom Maguire wrote: >So just to get some nomenclature correct. By WS-Names we mean an EPR >that >is profiled to >contain both a ResolverEPR and an AbstractName. So what do we call an EPR >which just >contains a ResolverEPR? > >Tom > >Ian Foster wrote: > >>I believe that the opinion was expressed by some at the San Diego >>meeting >>(e.g., by Steve Tuecke) that WS-Names should NOT be mandated. >> >>It certainly defines a nice way of using EPRs that will be useful in >>some >>situations. But it surely can't be the case that we always want to >>mandate this particular set of extensions to EPRs. That requirement >>certainly doesn't jibe with how we use them in all cases, for example. >> >>Ian. >> >> >>At 09:25 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: >> >>>All, >>> >>>In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. >>>The >>>current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out of the >>>various function calls. There was the question as to whether EPRs is all >>>that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA issue: mainly is >>>OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where appropriate. Clearly I think we >>>should. But this should be discussed. >>> >>>Andrew >> >>_______________________________________________________________ >>Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster >><http://www.mcs.anl.gov/%7Efoster> >>Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science >>Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago >>Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. >>Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 >> Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] BES query
by Ian Foster 30 Aug '05

30 Aug '05

I'm interested in that question too. As I've said on quite a few occasions, I like the EPR + ResolverEPR (as in the original WS-RenewableReferences) -- that is a nice simple mechanism. I don't understand why we can't have this in a separate specification. Ian. At 09:23 PM 8/29/2005 -0400, Tom Maguire wrote: >So just to get some nomenclature correct. By WS-Names we mean an EPR that >is profiled to >contain both a ResolverEPR and an AbstractName. So what do we call an EPR >which just >contains a ResolverEPR? > >Tom > >Ian Foster wrote: > >>I believe that the opinion was expressed by some at the San Diego meeting >>(e.g., by Steve Tuecke) that WS-Names should NOT be mandated. >> >>It certainly defines a nice way of using EPRs that will be useful in some >>situations. But it surely can't be the case that we always want to >>mandate this particular set of extensions to EPRs. That requirement >>certainly doesn't jibe with how we use them in all cases, for example. >> >>Ian. >> >> >>At 09:25 AM 8/29/2005 -0400, Andrew Grimshaw wrote: >> >>>All, >>> >>>In the BES working group call last week the issue of naming came up. The >>>current DRAFT specification calls for passing WS-Names in and out of the >>>various function calls. There was the question as to whether EPRs is all >>>that should be specified. We thought this is an OGSA issue: mainly is >>>OGSA endorsing the use of WS-Names where appropriate. Clearly I think we >>>should. But this should be discussed. >>> >>>Andrew >> >>_______________________________________________________________ >>Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster >><http://www.mcs.anl.gov/%7Efoster> >>Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science >>Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago >>Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. >>Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 >> Globus Alliance, www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A. Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997 Globus Alliance, www.globus.org

1 0

OGSA Roadmap status
by Treadwell, Jem 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Hi, I won't be able to make today's meeting, but here's the status of the Roadmap. - I've responded to all public comments. - Andreas created a new tracker for the next version. I've opened two trackers based on public comments, and moved one that we deferred in 1.0. - I've made all the editing changes except for the items below. - Waiting for new/updated sections from Tom & Takuya. - I haven't yet updated the tables from the spreadsheet - I'll do that once the final sections are in place, to make all the dates consistent. - I've uploaded the latest version of the standards spreadsheet to Gridforge, though it will need updating to add the B/P breakout documents On Wednesday's call we need to discuss use of OGSA as a trademark, which might result in more editing to make our use consistent. - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

No RM teleconference next Tuesday (August 30)
by Fred Maciel 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Hi, I'm hoping to have a teleconference on September 6th just to re-sync the design team. Meanwhile, work is progressing. Ellen is in vacations, but she sent me a first cut of the resource management section for the OGSA 1.5 spec, which I'll review as soon as I can ("as soon as I can" does not necessarily mean "soon" -- more details in the teleconference). Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America Ltd.

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 29th call
by Srinivasan, Latha 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Hiro, I would like to participate in the OGSA- WSRF BP review tonight, however, due to another commitment, I can join the call only around 7 pm or so. -Latha -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 8:15 AM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 29th call Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 29th 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: 0829 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-20050810/e n/1 Agenda bashing 2) F2F meeting evaluation (30 min) Meeting minutes approval https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 15-ad/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 16-am/en/2 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 16-pm/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 17-am/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 17-pm/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 18-am/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 18-pm/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 19/en/1 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review (60 min) > During the OGSA-WG F2F this week the group decided to break out > the security aspects into a separate document. The rough > timeline and set of documents will be approximately: > 1) Updated OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 resubmission (early > September) > 2) New OGSA Security - Secure Channel Profile 1.0 (September) > 3) New OGSA Security - Anonymous Channel Profile 1.0 > (September) Review Tom's update draft https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&categor y_id=280&filtertype=basic 4) telecon schedule (30 min) Review telecon schedule up until GGF15 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/e n/29 5) Wrap up AOB Aug 31st (Wednesday) Resource Information Modeling Sept 5th (Monday) No call due to labor day Sept 7th (Wednesday) EMS + Provisioning + WS-Agreement ---- Hiro Kishimoto -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 29th call
by Ziu, Peter 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Hiro, I have reviewed the following OGSA-Auth doc: "Authorizaiton_Framework_Document_-_Editor_Submission_2004-03-05.pdf". It is a very good doc that lays a foundation of semantics for most aspects of security, and outlines serveral interaction models between security entities. It chooses, however, not to enter into any authentication topics. Please let me know what wishes you have for further actions from this point w/ respect to security. Pete. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 8:15 AM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 29th call Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 29th 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: 0829 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-20050810/e n/1 Agenda bashing 2) F2F meeting evaluation (30 min) Meeting minutes approval https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 15-ad/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 16-am/en/2 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 16-pm/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 17-am/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 17-pm/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 18-am/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 18-pm/en/1 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-200508 19/en/1 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review (60 min) > During the OGSA-WG F2F this week the group decided to break out > the security aspects into a separate document. The rough > timeline and set of documents will be approximately: > 1) Updated OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 resubmission (early > September) > 2) New OGSA Security - Secure Channel Profile 1.0 (September) > 3) New OGSA Security - Anonymous Channel Profile 1.0 > (September) Review Tom's update draft https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&categor y_id=280&filtertype=basic 4) telecon schedule (30 min) Review telecon schedule up until GGF15 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/e n/29 5) Wrap up AOB Aug 31st (Wednesday) Resource Information Modeling Sept 5th (Monday) No call due to labor day Sept 7th (Wednesday) EMS + Provisioning + WS-Agreement ---- Hiro Kishimoto -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Proposed agenda for Aug. 29th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 29 Aug '05

29 Aug '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 29th 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: 0829 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-20050810/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) F2F meeting evaluation (30 min) Meeting minutes approval https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050815-… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050816-… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050816-… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050817-… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050817-… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050818-… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050818-… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/f2f-minutes-20050819/… 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review (60 min) > During the OGSA-WG F2F this week the group decided to break out > the security aspects into a separate document. The rough > timeline and set of documents will be approximately: > 1) Updated OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 resubmission (early > September) > 2) New OGSA Security - Secure Channel Profile 1.0 (September) > 3) New OGSA Security - Anonymous Channel Profile 1.0 > (September) Review Tom's update draft https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_i… 4) telecon schedule (30 min) Review telecon schedule up until GGF15 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/en/29 5) Wrap up AOB Aug 31st (Wednesday) Resource Information Modeling Sept 5th (Monday) No call due to labor day Sept 7th (Wednesday) EMS + Provisioning + WS-Agreement ---- Hiro Kishimoto -- Hiro Kishimoto

3 2

CFP -- SOBPI'05 -- Workshop on Service-Oriented Business Process Integration
by gagnon＠soa7.com 26 Aug '05

26 Aug '05

Apologies for cross-posting *********************************************************************** CALL FOR PAPERS International Workshop on SERVICE-ORIENTED BUSINESS PROCESSES INTEGRATION (SOBPI'05) http://elab.njit.edu/sobpi Held in conjunction with the 3rd International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing (ICSOC 2005) Amsterdam, the Netherlands December 12, 2005 *********************************************************************** --- IMPORTANT DATES --- Papers submission September 30, 2005 Notification October 21, 2005 Camera ready November 11, 2005 Workshop December 12, 2005 --- MOTIVATIONS --- A widely recognized trend in business and markets is the push towards the idea of companies and enterprises as networked organizations, which can gain profit from collaborations in the net, improving their flexibility, and reducing operational costs. This transformation requires the adoption of more collaborative working practices based on the integration of business processes within a wide community of business partners, suppliers, vendors, and public bodies. In parallel to this trend, service oriented technologies are transforming the web from an infrastructure for sharing information to a place where the networked organizations can meet to integrate their business interests. Service Oriented Computing (SOC) is currently the most promising technology supporting the development and execution of business processes that are distributed among the most disparate entities, both within an organization and across organizational borders. However, a practical industry-wide adoption of web services, to support the collaboration among networked organizations and the integration of their business process, is still an open challenge. This challenge can be addressed only by a tight integration of service-oriented development within new business models and new ways of management that are able to exploit new technological solutions. Moreover, web service technology is still emerging, and therefore their industry-wide adoption requires to inject research results within real industry practices, but, even more important, to drive research activities and roadmaps according to industrial needs. The aim of this workshop is to bring together researchers, practitioners, and experts in business models and management and to promote cross-fertilization among their competencies, focusing on the usage of service oriented technologies to support the Business Processes Integration (BPI). The goal is to build bridges and convergences among the complementary views of experts in IT and service oriented technologies and experts in management, and the different approaches of academy and industry, to the problem of business processes integration. The emphasis of the workshop will be on the demonstration of the practical application of research results, and on the description of industrial case studies. --- FOCUS --- The workshop will seek contributions in the field of SOC for BPI. Papers can take the form of detailed case studies, technical white papers, new methodologies, new standard specifications, benchmarking models, or any other contributions demonstrating innovative applications of SOC for BPI. Topics may include, but are not limited to: 1. Development Methodologies and Tools: a. Service/Process Modeling, Deployment, and Testing b. Enterprise Architecture and Service/Process Definition c. Model Driven Architecture and Service/Process Reuse d. Process-Oriented Messaging Infrastructures e. Distributed Business Process Management 2. Adoption of Advanced Technologies: a. Intelligent Process Discovery and Integration b. Service/Process Composition c. Event Driven Architecture and Process Automation d. Integration of Services, Messaging, and Connectors e. Business Activity Monitoring and Quality of Service 3. Comparison of Implementation Platforms: a. Business Process Management b. Enterprise Service Bus c. Business Services Networks The workshop will be highly interactive, and commentators will be exploited foster the discussion among participants with different backgrounds: each presentation will be followed by a short presentation of comments from a participant belonging to different areas of expertise, in order to bridge the ideas of the paper with a different viewpoint (e.g., each presentation on IT solutions will be followed by comments from industry experts and, vice-versa, presentations on case studies will be followed by comments on the research and technological challenges). --- SUBMISSIONS --- Authors are invited to submit original, previously unpublished contributions. Papers should be written in English using the Springer's LNCS style (http://www.springer.de/comp/lncs/authors.html) and must not exceed 15 pages. Shorter papers, presenting preliminary results, are welcome. Please submit papers electronically, using the workshop submission site (http://elab.njit.edu/sobpisubmit) Accepted papers will be published on-line and made available in hard copy to the workshop participants. For accepted submissions, at least one author must register for the workshop in order for the paper to appear in the proceedings and to be scheduled in the workshop program. --- ORGANIZERS --- * Stéphane Gagnon, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA * Heiko Ludwig, IBM Watson Research Center, USA * Marco Pistore, Univeristy of Trento, Italy * Wasim Sadiq, SAP Research Brisbane, Australia --- CONTACT INFORMATION --- Please direct all inquiries to <sobpi(a)dit.unitn.it>.

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Regrets tonight. Spouses birthday
by Treadwell, Jem 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

OK, so that sounds as if nobody was expecting to be the chair for purposes of the dial-in on Monday, which would explain the impasse. That shouldn't be an issue tonight, right?? And on behalf of the OGSA-WG, happy birthday to Mrs. Maguire... :0) - Jem > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Maguire > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 5:29 PM > To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-wg] Regrets tonight. Spouses birthday > > > > > > dialed in on Monday at 6:08PM and there was no one on. Sorry > for being late. Tonight is my lovely wifes birthday. Please > look at the OGSA BP edits that are posted. I am working on > the security section and will post tomorrow. Ditto for > Roadmap updates. > > Tom > > > > > Frey's Law: "Every 5 years the number of architecture > components double and the ability to comprehend them halves" > > > > > > 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

Regrets tonight. Spouses birthday
by Tom Maguire 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

dialed in on Monday at 6:08PM and there was no one on. Sorry for being late. Tonight is my lovely wifes birthday. Please look at the OGSA BP edits that are posted. I am working on the security section and will post tomorrow. Ditto for Roadmap updates. Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

Proposed agenda for Aug. 24th call
by Andreas Savva 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

[Sorry for the confusion last Monday. I'm just repeating Monday's agenda for Wednesday's call. This may end up being a short call if we don't get all the people we need to cover the topics below.] The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 24th 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 (probably) be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0824 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html > Hi all, > > Thank you very much for all F2F meeting attendees. The meeting is > amazing. We have had many very productive meeting whole this week. > Tom will chair calls in next week since I will be on vacation. > : > > 1) Early discussion (20 min) > Note taker assignment > Roll call > Telecon minutes approval > Agenda bashing > > 2) F2F meeting evaluation (30 min) > Meeting minutes approval > > 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review (60 min) > > During the OGSA-WG F2F this week the group decided to break out > > the security aspects into a separate document. The rough > > timeline and set of documents will be approximately: > > > 1) Updated OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 resubmission (early > > September) > > 2) New OGSA Security - Secure Channel Profile 1.0 (September) > > 3) New OGSA Security - Anonymous Channel Profile 1.0 > > (September) > Review Tom's update draft > https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_i… > > 4) Wrap up (10 min) > AOB > > Aug 24nd (Wednesday) Architecture & glossary 1.5, Telecon schedule -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

2 1

OGSA F2F #12 minutes
by Andreas Savva 24 Aug '05

24 Aug '05

1 0

No RM teleconference next Tuesday (August 22)
by Fred Maciel 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

Hi, I'm hosting the WSDM face-to-face meeting. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America Ltd.

1 0

OGSA RSS (Resource Selection Services) WG
by Soonwook Hwang 23 Aug '05

23 Aug '05

Dear all, For those of you who have yet to be informed, I am pleased to let you know that the OGSA-RSS-WG was approved by the GGF Steering Group early this month. The focus of this OGSA-RSS-WG is on defining protocols and interfaces for the Resource Selection Services (RSS) portion of the OGSA EMS (Execution Management Services). The RSS consists of the Candidate Set Generator (CSG) and Execution Planning Services (EPS). The CSG is all about finding execution candidate locations and the EPS all about selecting the best execution location according to a given objective function. Please refer to https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-rss-wg/ for more information about this working group. If you are interested in the group's ongoing activities, please subscribe its mailing list by sending an email with the body "subscribe ogsa-rss <email-address>" to majordomo(a)ggf.org. Best regards, Soonwook

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 22nd call
by Manuel Pereira 22 Aug '05

22 Aug '05

Same here. Manuel Pereira =============================== IBM Almaden Research Center =============================== 650 Harry Road, San Jose, CA 95120 1-408-927-1935 [T/L 457] Pager: 800-946-4646 1492425 http://mvp3.almaden.ibm.com mpereira(a)us.ibm.com Monday, August 22, 2005 3:13 PM To: "'Hiro Kishimoto'" <hiro.kishimoto(a)jp.fujitsu.com>, <ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org> cc: From: "Andrew Grimshaw" <grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 22nd call I'm hanging out on the call ...... it's been 12 minutes. What's up? -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 4:08 PM To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 22nd call Hi all, Thank you very much for all F2F meeting attendees. The meeting is amazing. We have had many very productive meeting whole this week. Tom will chair calls in next week since I will be on vacation. The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 22nd 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: 0822 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval Agenda bashing 2) F2F meeting evaluation (30 min) Meeting minutes approval 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review (60 min) > During the OGSA-WG F2F this week the group decided to break out > the security aspects into a separate document. The rough > timeline and set of documents will be approximately: > 1) Updated OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 resubmission (early > September) > 2) New OGSA Security - Secure Channel Profile 1.0 (September) > 3) New OGSA Security - Anonymous Channel Profile 1.0 > (September) Review Tom's update draft https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_id =280&filtertype=basic 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Aug 24nd (Wednesday) Architecture & glossary 1.5, Telecon schedule ---- Hiro Kishimoto -- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1

Proposed agenda for Aug. 22nd call
by Hiro Kishimoto 22 Aug '05

22 Aug '05

Hi all, Thank you very much for all F2F meeting attendees. The meeting is amazing. We have had many very productive meeting whole this week. Tom will chair calls in next week since I will be on vacation. The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 22nd 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: 0822 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval Agenda bashing 2) F2F meeting evaluation (30 min) Meeting minutes approval 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review (60 min) > During the OGSA-WG F2F this week the group decided to break out > the security aspects into a separate document. The rough > timeline and set of documents will be approximately: > 1) Updated OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 resubmission (early > September) > 2) New OGSA Security - Secure Channel Profile 1.0 (September) > 3) New OGSA Security - Anonymous Channel Profile 1.0 > (September) Review Tom's update draft https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_i… 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Aug 24nd (Wednesday) Architecture & glossary 1.5, Telecon schedule ---- Hiro Kishimoto -- Hiro Kishimoto

3 2

Updated draft document
by Andrew Grimshaw 22 Aug '05

22 Aug '05

All, I have updated the draft document to incorporate the comments from the F2F. The most significant change is that the resolve portype that takes an optional EPR. The EPR no longer MUST contain an AbstractName element. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-naming-wg/document/WS-Naming_draft _22-8-2005/en/1 Andrew

1 0

Day five OGSA F2F meeting
by Hiro Kishimoto 19 Aug '05

19 Aug '05

Hi all, We've made a very good progress today and are ahead of the schedule. We agreed to start Friday session at 9am (instead of 8am) and adjourn at 11am. Please find proposed agenda for tomorrow on the gridForge; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-08-Friday https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA 1.5 draft 001 (starting point)
by Andreas Savva 18 Aug '05

18 Aug '05

The starting draft for OGSA 1.5 is on gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-spec-1… - This is just a minor change to Version 1.0; changed the version and reset the draft number. - Design teams should use this draft as the starting point. - As agreed at the F2F, the various design teams should revise their respective sections ONLY. (And discuss proposed changes affecting multiple sections on the list or on calls.) - Please send updates to me; I'll merge and upload intermediate drafts. This document is located in the "Working Drafts : OGSA 1.5 folder" https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_i… I'm attaching the ppt discussed today fyr. -- Andreas Savva

1 0

Roadmap documents updated
by Treadwell, Jem 18 Aug '05

18 Aug '05

Hi, updated versions of the standards spreadsheet and the Roadmap document have been uploaded to GridForge for today's discussion. You can find them at http://tinyurl.com/aez86. - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

Presentation on DMTF Profiles
by Andrea Westerinen (andreaw) 18 Aug '05

18 Aug '05

Attached. Andrea

1 0

OGSA RM workshop expected output
by Hiro Kishimoto 18 Aug '05

18 Aug '05

Hi all, We've agreed to have one-hour RM scenarios workshop this morning. Attached slides is my understanding of the expected output of this workshop. Let's use this slides for level-setting and clear definition of the output at the beginning of the morning session. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

OGSA-WG requests of OGSA-Authz-WG
by Von Welch 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

In discussions with the OGSA-WG this morning three requests were made of the OGSA-Authz WG: 1) Renamed the current OGSA-Authz SAML document from an OGSA document to an OGSI document to reflect OGSA's change from OGSI to WSRF. 2) As part of our V2 Charter, produce a OGSA/WSRF version of our current SAML document. (Tom Maguire has volunteered to assist.) 3) Incorporate, where appropriate, the OGSA Profile format into our future documents. In regards to #1, barring objection I will go ahead and make this change and resubmit the document to the editor. In regards to #2, this seems reasonable, and with Tom's help I will take the point on making this happen. In regards to #3, I really don't understand the roles of these profiles yet and the low quality of the phone bridge was not conducive to helping me achieve understanding. Can I ask for clarification over email on how were should be looking to use OGSA profiles in our work? Von

1 1

OGSA F2F Day Two
by Hiro Kishimoto 16 Aug '05

16 Aug '05

Hi all, The latest update for OGSA F2F meeting Day Two (Aug. 16, Tuesday); (1) Morning session will start 10:30am. ByteIO-WG 10:30am-12:30pm CDDLM-WG joint session 1:30-5pm (2) In case no one is on the phone bridge, please call me. Since freeconference.com puts music on if there is no other party is on the bridge. Thus we may drop after hearing music 5 or 10 minutes. In case you find we are not there, please call me at my mobile +1-312-399-3176, we will call in again shortly. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Frank's mail about pros and cons of container interceprtion
by Andreas Savva 15 Aug '05

15 Aug '05

This is the email that Frank referred to in today's BES session: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/04/msg00033.html

1 0

The latest meeting schedule and slide template for F2F
by Hiro Kishimoto 15 Aug '05

15 Aug '05

Hi all, Please find the latest meeting schedule and slide template for F2F meeting. We will start at 9am tomorrow. See you there. -- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1

RM teleconference minutes -- August 12, 2005
by Fred Maciel 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

Hi, Here are the minutes of the teleconference. Thanks to all who participated, and especially to Ellen for working on the nomenclature. Looks like we finally cleared a lot of the haze and started understanding each other. By the way, the plan is to open the modeling discussion in the face-to-face by explaining the nomenclature. My document(s) unfortunately remain with what is now considered the wrong nomenclature (profuse mentions of "resource models"), so please read them with care. See you soon, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Pointer to the CIM to WSDM mapping document
by Andrea Westerinen (andreaw) 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ ws-wsdm/ As requested on this morning's call .... Andrea

1 0

OGSA F2F meeting schedule
by Hiro Kishimoto 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

Hi all, Please find updated F2F meeting agenda as of today. Now we have detailed agenda items for all sessions. Thank you very much for all fellow WGs' co-chairs for your help. This is also uploaded to GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… or http://tinyurl.com/bw52x Please keep it in your mind, it is *not* caved in stone. We should be flexible in adjusting schedule and make the meeting productive. Have a safe trip and see you in SF bay area! -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 10 August 2005
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

>>* Roadmap 1.0 review >> - Waiting for an update for the Information document from Abdeslem Here are some provisional dates; First draft Feb 2006 Ready for p/c review Oct 2006 GFD-I publication Feb 2007 Abdeslem ////////////////////// -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Andreas Savva Sent: 12 August 2005 12:05 To: 'ogsa-wg' Subject: [ogsa-wg] Teleconference minutes - 10 August 2005 Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050810/e n/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 10 August 2005
by Andreas Savva 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050810/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 10 August 2005 ==================================== * Participants Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Von Welch (ANL) Jay Unger (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Mary Thompson (LBL) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Takuya Mori (NEC) Mark Morgan (UVa) Tom Maguire (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes Aug. 8 approval postponed * WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 status update - The document is still in GGF Editor review. - Andrew as the Architecture (AD) will ask Greg Newby to bring it to GFSG review. * OGSA-AuthZ-WG discussion Introduction of OGSA-AuthZ-WG deliverables and preliminary discussion about next week's F2F. ** Authorization service document This document is still being revised. It is based on the SAML 1.1 model. A client makes an authorization request and gets back a response - Reply is one of "yes/no/indeterminate or not applicable" - If 'no', does it also return why not? No. - A 'yes' may still change to 'no' later due to other state changes - It actually returns an assertion containing information on what the client can do---the assertion is signed and has a validity period. - There is another variant where a client accesses a service and the service checks whether the operation is allowed at that time. - Is parameter based authorization supported? - Not in version 1 of the document but thinking about it for version 2. - Is it method level or message level? - It is 'method' level---on invocation. The document is basically a - SAML authorization assertion profile; and - extensions to address certain use cases - Does it depend on the OGSA WSRF BP or any other infrastructure? - Initially it was based on OGSI and then moved to WSRF - The document does talk about what state is exposed but does not use these features heavily; it is not a major dependency. - Is it a dependency or composition? In other words, is a service defined or just a set of abstract portTypes that can be composed with other portTypes? - At the moment OGSA-AuthZ is looking at this more as a standalone service. - But there is nothing stopping anyone from mixing the defined portTypes in their service. But conceptually that is not the model the OGSA-AuthZ group has been working with. - Suppose a client wants to access an endpoint. If the authorization point is separate from the service, how can the client find out where it needs to go to receive authorization? - It is out of scope. - A common pattern is to try and access the service endpoint and then the service goes and asks (its authorization point) if it is ok. - Otherwise the client has to be configured with a priori information. (And this also looks like a common case.) ** Attributes document It has been submitted to GGF and is now in public comment. - The Service document (above) came first. It ended up covering a large area so the Attributes portion was pulled out and made into this separate document. The Attributes document defines the - format of attributes and semantics; and - two profiles: SAML and x.509 - Hiro during an earlier review had suggested that this document should be re-formated as a profile document - It is true that some sections are profiles; while others are informational - Now thinking how to re-structure the document - Tom volunteered to help/give feedback with structuring this document as a Profile. These 2 documents are a pair and should really move through the process together but the Attributes document is ahead. In some ways the Attributes document is an addition/appendix of the Service document. ** Security session at F2F The plan is to continue further discussion of these two documents. Also the OGSA-Data WG has questions on the authorization service. There has been some email exchange but they also want to talk at the F2F. Finally how to structure the collaboration around OGSA security and how to start working together. Von is the current chair but he is in the process of handing over the group. Also the group is in process of re-chartering. There are a number of ideas for future work including updating the specifications to use SAML 2.0, integrating XACML work, etc. Hiro mentioned the OGSA naming rule that GFSG has been defining. A new charter for OGSA-AuthZ should include a statement that the group will collaborate with OGSA-WG as needed. - Hiro will send information to Von about this requirement. * Roadmap 1.0 review Review of revision to address public comments. - Sec 1.0: "...human resources..." statement revised. And re-revised to remove "...limited number of people..." - Sec 2.0: "...specifications and profiles..." revision. - "...recommended profile..." addition to define what this term means. Agreed not to duplicate detailed definitions from other documents but provide a short definition and reference. - GFD-I reference - Added Takuya's text describing the OGSA-AuthZ documents. (Needs review) - Table update - Waiting for an update for the Information document from Abdeslem - Discussed deadline to return the document to Greg - Since the F2F is next week it will probably take until the beginning of September. * F2F update - OGSA-EGA meeting - The EGA members have asked for this meeting to be a closed one. It was in the F2F agenda earlier so the implication was that it was a regular open session. For this reason Hiro has dropped it from the last agenda he posted. - A number of concerns were raised with having this as a closed session. - Only a limited number of people can attend (expected to be about 4). At the moment it is probably the two Chairs, Secretary and AD. - Fred also expressed an interest in taking part in this meeting. - It was agreed to discuss who will take part on Monday. - Hiro is still waiting for all the agendas to come in. He has added some new items for Thursday afternoon and Friday morning; including a discussion on re-chartering. - Friday is now scheduled 8-11am and 11am is a hard stop. * Architecture & Glossary 1.5 discussion Andreas confirmed that Andrew will be in charge of the EMS section revision. The EMS revision will cover the new work on BES, RSS, etc. Also the terminology problems raised during the last public comment should be fixed.

1 0

model terminology for Fri Aug 12 OGSA and RM design team call
by Ellen Stokes 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

Ellen Stokes STSM, Grid Computing TC Member, IBM Academy of Technology Austin, Texas tl 678 0552 outside +1 512 838 0552 stokese(a)us.ibm.com

1 0

Scenarios to use at the resource model discussion
by Fred Maciel 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

Folks, Here is a proposal for scenarios to use at the resource model discussion at the face-to-face. (Chris, thanks for the feedback). Starting by what how to do the discussion, we should project the EMS picture (i.e., the one with all its services) on a whiteboard, then submit "job(s)" to the Job Manager. Then we follow all the information related to the resource model while we go through through the steps of discovery (which happens before job submission), resource selection, deployment, execution, etc.. I'm proposing two scenarios below, which put different emphasis on different points (queues vs online, dynamic vs static information, etc.). On each example I'm cutting details that would be redundant (storage in the first one, I/O bandwidth in the second, etc.). We probably will only have time to tackle one of them, and the first one should be complete enough. (1) Commercial Data Center (see OGSA use cases) We want to allocate two Web servers, two application servers and one database server in a data center, and run a Web site on it. This is an online system so resources are scheduled (i.e., the Web site comes live on a given date). The whole Web site is a single "job submission" which specifies the whole system structure and applications (including versions). The emphasis here is the system structure. [We might add monitoring the load on the resources to re-allocate resources according to the workload.] (2) Consolidation A data center has lots of 4-way machines, and lots of single-CPU jobs. Jobs are queued. You know how much memory each job uses. The objective here is to submit jobs in a way that maximizes utilization, so you want to select a machine that has enough memory and CPU available available to add a given job without thrashing it. I'm assuming that you are using dynamic information on load and memory with reasonably good "freshness" to make the selection. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

[Fwd: GGF15 Session Scheduling is open]
by Hiro Kishimoto 12 Aug '05

12 Aug '05

Hi all, Attached is a letter of request from Joel Replogle, GGF Standards Facilitator. Let's review his request and decide our answer at "GGF15 preparation" session in the morning of Aug. 19 (Fri). See you very soon. -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Material for F2F model discussion
by Fred Maciel 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

Hi, (1) Here is a new version of the document (Word file). I didn't receive many comments, so there were only minor changes on the contents compared to the version I posted last week. Notice that we will try to sort out the resource model vs information model vs data model nomenclature problem (and perhaps other ones) on the teleconference on Friday. I'm posting the document before we have a conclusion so that you can print it and read it on the plane. (2) I'm including the model proposal that Andrea created (already posted to the mailing list during GGF14) for your convenience. I re-created the PDF file to put everything in two sheets (watch out the paper size when you print it). I also created a text file with the description of the classes, properties and methods in this model, so you can see what they mean. I created this file by copying-and-pasting from the CIM MOF (Manageable Object Format) files, so apologies for the syntax. Remember that the model proposal "flattens" the CIM classes (which I did in the text file also), erases deprecated stuff (idem), and erases stuff out of scope wrt JSDL, containers and activities (which I also erased from the text file, but not exhaustively). (3) Here is an updated list of pointers on related specs. - JSIM: the spec (GFD-I.028) is at: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ggf-editor/document/GFD.28/en/1 There is also a UML diagram: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/JSIM_PDF/en/1 - CIM: the schemas are under: http://www.dmtf.org/standards/cim JSIM classes are in 2.10 experimental (awaiting implementation experience to become final). You can find a tutorial (HTML and PDF) at: http://www.wbemsolutions.com/tutorials/CIM/ - JSDL: http://www.ggf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/July-2005/draft-ggf-jsdl-sp ec-021.pdf There's a nice introduction at: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/jsdl-wg/document/JSDL-Introduction/en/ - GLUE 1.1: the schemas are in http://infnforge.cnaf.infn.it/glueinfomodel/ There's a good presentation on GLUE 1.1: http://www.dma.unina.it/~murli/SummerSchool/presentations/InformationModelin g-GLUE.ppt - GLUE 1.2: http://infnforge.cnaf.infn.it/glueinfomodel/ The latest draft can be found under: http://infnforge.cnaf.infn.it/glueinfomodel/uploads/Spec/GLUEInfoModel_1_2_d raft_8.pdf There is a very good presentation at: http://infnforge.cnaf.infn.it/cdsagenda//askArchive.php?base=agenda&categ=a0 56&id=a056s0t1/transparencies Regards, Fred Maciel

2 1

RM teleconference minutes: August 9, 2005
by Fred Maciel 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

Hi, Here are the minutes. Regards Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Right said Fred...
by Treadwell, Jem 11 Aug '05

11 Aug '05

Hi, for some reason working on the minutes this morning kept reminding me of the the following song, which I realized might be a useful case study of resource management. It was published back in 1962, by a British academic named Bernard Cribbins (http://www.answers.com/topic/bernard-cribbins) - think of him as the British working man's Tom Lehrer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer) I suspect all the Brits and their children will know the song pretty well, but I doubt if it's well known anywhere else. The resource in question was a piano, and the management task was to get it out of a house. The process they followed is roughly the same as the modern-day working group process of repeatedly taking a stab at a problem and then heading for the bar (and slipping the schedule) when it proves too difficult, but the language is particularly British, so for those who are unfamiliar I've included a Glossary. :0) - Jem Right Said Fred Performed by Bernard Cribbins Lyrics reproduced without permission Right said Fred, both of us together, one each end and steady as we go Tried to to shift it, couldn't even lift it, we was getting nowhere And so, we, had a cup of tea Right said Fred, give a shout to Charlie, up comes Charlie from the floor below After straining, heaving and complaining, we was getting nowhere And so, we, had a cup of tea Charlie had a think and he thought we ought, to take off all the handles And the things that hold the candles - but it did no good (well I never thought it would!) Right said Fred, have to take the feet off, to get them feet off wouldn't take a mo... Took its feet off, even with the seat off, should have got us somewhere, but no! So Fred said let's have another cup of tea, and we said "right-oh!" Right said Fred, have to take the door off, need more space to shift the so-and-so Had bad twinges, taking off the hinges, and it got us nowhere And so, we, had a cup of tea Right said Fred, have to take the wall down, that there wall is gonna have to go Took the wall down, even with it all down, we was getting nowhere And so, we, had a cup of tea Charlie had a think and and he said look Fred, I've got a sort of feeling If we remove the ceiling, With a rope or two we can drop the blighter through... Right said Fred, climbing up a ladder, with his crowbar gave a mighty blow Was he in trouble, half a ton of rubble, landed on the top of, his dome So Charlie and me had another cup of tea And then we, went home! [Spoken, fading out...] I said to Charlie we'll just have to leave it standing on the landing, that's all. You see the trouble with Fred is, he's too hasty. Now you never get nowhere if you're too hasty... Glossary mo = moment right-oh! = an expression of cheerful agreement so-and-so = an exasperating person or other resource blighter = so-and-so dome = head landing = upstairs hallway ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] RM teleconference on Friday, August 12
by Fred Maciel 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Hi again, > - 23:00-24:00 Japan (GMT + 9, following day) Same day, not following day. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

RM teleconference on Friday, August 12
by Fred Maciel 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Hi, The Resource Management design team will have a teleconference on Friday, August 12. The main objective is, in preparation to the face-to-face, to sort out the terminology (information vs resource model etc.) and hopefully discuss the similarities and differences between them. Many thanks to Ellen for volunteering to sort out this information beforehand. Date: Tuesday, August 12th, at the following times: - 07:00-08:00 US Pacific (GMT - 7) - 08:00-09:00 US Mountain (GMT - 6) - 09:00-10:00 US Central (GMT - 5) - 10:00-11:00 US Eastern (GMT - 4) - 14:00-15:00 GMT - 15:00-16:00 UK (GMT + 1) - 16:00-17:00 Central Europe (GMT + 2) - 23:00-24:00 Japan (GMT + 9, following day) 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

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Right said Fred...
by Subramaniam, Ravi 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Right said Jem!!! Ravi ________________________________ From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Treadwell, Jem Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 12:40 PM To: ogsa-wg Subject: [ogsa-wg] Right said Fred... Hi, for some reason working on the minutes this morning kept reminding me of the the following song, which I realized might be a useful case study of resource management. It was published back in 1962, by a British academic named Bernard Cribbins (http://www.answers.com/topic/bernard-cribbins) - think of him as the British working man's Tom Lehrer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lehrer) I suspect all the Brits and their children will know the song pretty well, but I doubt if it's well known anywhere else. The resource in question was a piano, and the management task was to get it out of a house. The process they followed is roughly the same as the modern-day working group process of repeatedly taking a stab at a problem and then heading for the bar (and slipping the schedule) when it proves too difficult, but the language is particularly British, so for those who are unfamiliar I've included a Glossary. :0) - Jem Right Said Fred Performed by Bernard Cribbins Lyrics reproduced without permission Right said Fred, both of us together, one each end and steady as we go Tried to to shift it, couldn't even lift it, we was getting nowhere And so, we, had a cup of tea Right said Fred, give a shout to Charlie, up comes Charlie from the floor below After straining, heaving and complaining, we was getting nowhere And so, we, had a cup of tea Charlie had a think and he thought we ought, to take off all the handles And the things that hold the candles - but it did no good (well I never thought it would!) Right said Fred, have to take the feet off, to get them feet off wouldn't take a mo... Took its feet off, even with the seat off, should have got us somewhere, but no! So Fred said let's have another cup of tea, and we said "right-oh!" Right said Fred, have to take the door off, need more space to shift the so-and-so Had bad twinges, taking off the hinges, and it got us nowhere And so, we, had a cup of tea Right said Fred, have to take the wall down, that there wall is gonna have to go Took the wall down, even with it all down, we was getting nowhere And so, we, had a cup of tea Charlie had a think and and he said look Fred, I've got a sort of feeling If we remove the ceiling, With a rope or two we can drop the blighter through... Right said Fred, climbing up a ladder, with his crowbar gave a mighty blow Was he in trouble, half a ton of rubble, landed on the top of, his dome So Charlie and me had another cup of tea And then we, went home! [Spoken, fading out...] I said to Charlie we'll just have to leave it standing on the landing, that's all. You see the trouble with Fred is, he's too hasty. Now you never get nowhere if you're too hasty... Glossary mo = moment right-oh! = an expression of cheerful agreement so-and-so = an exasperating person or other resource blighter = so-and-so dome = head landing = upstairs hallway ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

Proposed agenda for August 17 F2F
by Andrew Grimshaw 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

All, On August 17 from 0900-1200 PST we will be having a F2F as part of the overall OGSA F2F meeting in Sunnyvale. I propose the following agenda: 0: Agenda bashing as usual 1: Discuss updated document (see footnote) & decide if we are ready to send it out for public comment 2: RNS discussion Is RNS the high-level name scheme that we want? Is there any feedback we (the OGSA-WG) want to offer to the GFS-WG independent of feedback from any single member (i.e., are there any issues that we think are critical?) 3: Interoperability testing of WS-Naming resolution functions. Footnote: Mark and I in the process of taking the last version of the document (July 11), and a) Putting into GGF format b) Schema and WSDL of resolution porttypes c) Normative schema and description for extending WS-Addressing (right now we have an example, not a schema) d) Example message exchanges for resolution

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] WSRF - enumerating resources
by Fred Maciel 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Hi Enric, > You're essentially correct. WSRF has no "builtin" resource > enumeration > function, as this would be a higher level system-like function. For a link between WBEM/CIM and WSRF, please see the document at: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-w sdm/ It is the proposal to map CIM onto WSDM (Web Services Distributed Management). WSDM, to put (a bit too) simply, is a layer on top of WSRF/WSN, and even if you only don't know WSDM you might be able to understand a lot of the document (see section 11 and especially section 16). This document might give you an example of what kind of thing is the "higher-level" that David talked about, and "WS-CIM" that Tom mentioned. Hope that helps, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Minutes of OGSA-WG meeting 8/8...
by Treadwell, Jem 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

...have been posted at http://tinyurl.com/93wnf. - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

Proposed agenda for Aug. 10th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 10th 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: 0810 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 (if available) Agenda bashing 2) Aug F2F meeting update (20 min) Please find updated F2F schedule attached I am proposing to add the following agenda items; - Roadmap document discussion (60 min Aug. 18 pm) - OGSA next step discussion (60 min Aug. 19 am) - OGSA re-charter discussion (60 min Aug. 19 am) 3) OGSA-AuthZ WG joint discussion (30 min) What is "OGSA Authorization Attributes"? What is "SAML for OGSA Authorization"? - Takuya's text for OGSA roadmap document F2F meeting schedule - OGSA-AuthZ-WG document discussion - OGSA-data service authorization discussion http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-d-wg/2005/07/msg00009.html - Next step for collaboration discussion 4) OGSA roadmap document review (30 min) > Takuya will provide an entry for OGSA-AuthZ document by next > week. > Jem will prepare a revision of the Roadmap based on the > public comments for review next week. 5) OGSA and glossary 1.5 discussion (30 min) > Andreas to follow up with capability owners. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/deferred-ogsa-1.0-pub… 6) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Aug. 15-19 F2F meeting in SF bay area https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1

ByteIO Draft Recommendation Document Package
by Hiro Kishimoto 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Mark's email bounced. From: "Mark Morgan" <mmm2a(a)cs.virginia.edu> To: <ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org> Subject: ByteIO Draft Recommendation Document Package Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:39:57 -0400 These are the draft recommendation documents that the ByteIO working group will be discussing at next week's face-to-face meeting. -- Mark Morgan Research Scientist Department of Computer Science University of Virginia http://www.cs.virginia.edu mmm2a(a)virginia.edu (434) 982-2047

1 1

Re: [ogsa-wg] WSRF - enumerating resources
by Hiro Kishimoto 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Tom's email bounced. ---- Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:04:19 -0400 From: Tom Maguire <tom.maguire(a)suscom.net> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Enric_Ja=E9n_Villoldo?= <Enric.Jaen(a)campus.uab.es> Cc: ogsa-wg(a)gridforum.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] WSRF - enumerating resources Enric, You should ask this question of the OASIS WSRF TC. That being said, I believe you will find the answer is that there is no standardized mechanism for 'instance registries'. You certainly could use a ServiceGroup to provide this capability. This is precisely what the one of the proposals to the DMTF WS-CIM WG dictates. That would be another place to ask the question. Tom Enric Ja駭 Villoldo wrote: >>Hello, I have a general question about WSRF and I hope this is the correct place to make it (if not, please tell me where should I ask) >> >>How can I retrieve the list of all the Resource instances of the same type? (In WBEM/CIM it would equival to do a enumerateInstances() operation). Maybe should I create a service group, and then do a query() ? >> >>Thanks for any help. >> >>-Enric >> >> >> >>

1 0

WSRF - enumerating resources
by Enric Jaén Villoldo 10 Aug '05

10 Aug '05

Hello, I have a general question about WSRF and I hope this is the correct place to make it (if not, please tell me where should I ask) How can I retrieve the list of all the Resource instances of the same type? (In WBEM/CIM it would equival to do a enumerateInstances() operation). Maybe should I create a service group, and then do a query() ? Thanks for any help. -Enric

2 1

Re: [ogsa-wg] Document on resource models
by Subramaniam, Ravi 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Hi Fred, Thanks! This is good. So like you suggest leaveraging CIM 2.1 would be a great start to bridge the "JSIM" like piece withthe equivalent description in say GLUE. Both CIM and GLUE use UML and so it may be an easier excercise that we may think now. Thanks! Ravi -------------------------- Ravi Subramaniam Intel -----Original Message----- From: Fred Maciel <Fred.Maciel(a)hds.com> To: Subramaniam, Ravi <ravi.subramaniam(a)intel.com>; Hiro Kishimoto <hiro.kishimoto(a)jp.fujitsu.com> CC: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org <ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org> Sent: Mon Aug 08 16:46:50 2005 Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Document on resource models Hi Ravi, > A thought crossed my mind after we dropped off from the call. With > reference to CIM and Grid, what is the status of the Grid > Schema WG? As > I understood it (I think from Carl K) they were to apply CIM to > execution and monitoring of Grid jobs. Maybe they have some > useful stuff > that we can "proudly plagiarize" for the F2F discussion. The CGS-WG (CIM Grid Schema WG) and the CMM-WG merged and became the Resource Management design team. Which means that both working groups closed but are still active :-). Tom Roney (one of the CGS-WG chairs) participates in the resource management design team. What you are talking about is JSIM (Job Submission Information Model). It has just been incorporated in CIM 2.10, just released, and be sure that we will "proudly plagiarize" its classes in time (if we haven't done so already). BTW, the work on SRIM (Software Resource Information Model), which CGS-WG was doing when it closed, is now being done at the DAIS-WG collaborating directly with the DMTF. In fact, Tom Roney believes that this is a better way of collaborating with the DMTF, instead of going through the CGS-WG. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Document on resource models
by Fred Maciel 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Hi Ravi, > A thought crossed my mind after we dropped off from the call. With > reference to CIM and Grid, what is the status of the Grid > Schema WG? As > I understood it (I think from Carl K) they were to apply CIM to > execution and monitoring of Grid jobs. Maybe they have some > useful stuff > that we can "proudly plagiarize" for the F2F discussion. The CGS-WG (CIM Grid Schema WG) and the CMM-WG merged and became the Resource Management design team. Which means that both working groups closed but are still active :-). Tom Roney (one of the CGS-WG chairs) participates in the resource management design team. What you are talking about is JSIM (Job Submission Information Model). It has just been incorporated in CIM 2.10, just released, and be sure that we will "proudly plagiarize" its classes in time (if we haven't done so already). BTW, the work on SRIM (Software Resource Information Model), which CGS-WG was doing when it closed, is now being done at the DAIS-WG collaborating directly with the DMTF. In fact, Tom Roney believes that this is a better way of collaborating with the DMTF, instead of going through the CGS-WG. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

RM teleconference on August 9
by Fred Maciel 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Hi, On the teleconference tomorrow we will discuss the agenda for the resource modeling discussion in the face-to-face next week, plus any preparations that we need to make. We could optionally use some time to get feedback on the document that I posted on Friday. Date: Tuesday, August 9th, 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

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Document on resource models
by Subramaniam, Ravi 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Hi, A thought crossed my mind after we dropped off from the call. With reference to CIM and Grid, what is the status of the Grid Schema WG? As I understood it (I think from Carl K) they were to apply CIM to execution and monitoring of Grid jobs. Maybe they have some useful stuff that we can "proudly plagiarize" for the F2F discussion. Thanks! Ravi -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 7:14 AM To: Fred Maciel Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Document on resource models Hi Fred, Andreas and I review your document and we agree with overall conclusion and recommendations. But we think that the output should be more concrete on how OGSA can use CIM. Please check out the attached slides and let discuss it on upcoming call. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Fred Maciel wrote: > Hi, > > Here is the current version of the document I'm writing on resource > models. > I was assuming that the contents of this document would be the basis > for the discussions in the face-to-face, but I have been getting mixed > signals. In the teleconference I'd like to discuss two things: > > - What are we discussing in the one day that we allocated for resource > models in the face-to-face? Are we discussing resource models on execution > management, are we going to make a decision on which resource model we will > use, both, or something else? (I thought that we were going to make a > decision on what we will use). > > - If we are going to discuss what we will use, is there anything missing in > the document that you would like to see written? > > Regards, > > Fred Maciel > Hitachi America R&D >

1 0

BES Agenda at OGSA F2F
by Steven Newhouse 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

As discussed at the last call the provisional agenda for the BES part of the F2F (Monday 10.30-15.00) 0. Agenda bashing [10 mins] 1. Review of current draft & discussion [50 mins] 2. Discussion about renderings [60 + 60 mins] 3. Discussion about implementations [30 mins] Consider this a stake in the ground! 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

roadmap document status
by Hiro Kishimoto 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Hi all, Greg Newby, GGF Editor, returns the roadmap document to OGSA-WG for final edit. > Status has changed: - New: 'Author Reviewing Edits' Old: 'Public Comment Period' > Resolution has changed: - New: 'Returned to Authors/Group' Old: 'Accepted' > Comment By: Greg Newby (2005-08-07 17:45:36) > Public comment for this document is completed. > Authors, please see the comments here: > https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540 > > Provide any responses, and if desired upload a final > document for review. Please indicate your readiness > for final editor review in this tracker. -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Proposed agenda for Aug. 8th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 8th 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: 0808 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050803/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) August F2F meeting update (20 min) Fellow WG co-chairs: Please provide detailed agenda for your session. The latest meeting agenda. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… 3) Provisioning discussion (20 min) CDDLM-WG and sub group of EMS team had joint call on Aug. 3. They wrote up the following agenda for F2F > A) (1:30-1:45) Introduction (learn more about EMS broader picture, in > the past wee overviewed CDDLM) > B) (1:45-3:15) Defining architectural relationship (This is really > related to the pictures we discussed above, Fig 5 in the OGSA arch & Fig > 7 in CDDLM Foundation) > C) (3:15-3:45) Indebt overview of the CDDLM interfaces (if needed) > D) (3:45-4:15) Description and integration of ACS & CDDLM (Ravi: added > BES as well). > E) (4:15-4:45) Integration roadmap > F) (4:45-5:00) Next steps 4) Resource Modeling discussion (60 min) > - Fred has started circulating a first draft to a small group of > people. It will be reviewed Monday to check that it addresses > the right area but detailed discussion on the content will be > left for the F2F. http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/08/msg00030.html 5) Wrap up AOB Aug. 10 (Wed) OGSA-AuthZ-WG, roadmap, Architecture and Glossary 1.5 Aug. 15-19 F2F meeting in SF bay area https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

2 1

Re: [gfs-wg] Minutes of 8/5,6 GFS-WG Conference call
by Manuel Pereira 08 Aug '05

08 Aug '05

Hello all, Thank you Osamu for posting the minutes of the last meeting. I am sending this note to each of the associated mailing lists to notify all interested parties that the most recent RNS specification draft has been posted to GridForge and is available for review.[1] I would also like to inform everyone interested that we are planning to submit this draft to the GFD Editor this week. [1] https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gfs-wg/document/RNS-Proposed_Final_Dra… Best regards, Manuel Pereira ------------------------------------------------------ IBM Almaden Research Center 1-408-927-1935 [Tieline: 457] mpereira(a)us.ibm.com ------------------------------------------------------ owner-gfs-wg(a)ggf.org wrote on 08/05/2005 06:50:23 PM: > Hi all, > > Here is minutes of the last conference call. > > Thanks, > Osamu > > --- > GFS-WG conference call > Friday, Aug 5, 2005 > 4:30pm to 5:30pm (PDT) > > Note taker: Osamu Tatebe (AIST) > > Participants > ------------ > Manuel Pereira > Ted Anderson > Osamu Tatebe > > Agenda > ------ > Introduction & agenda bushing ( 5min) > Change from 8th to 9th revision ( 5min) > Full path vs absolute path (20min) > Other issues (10min) > > Meeting > ------- > * Change from 8th to 9th revision > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gfs-wg/document/RNS- > Proposed_Final_Draft-v1.9/en/9 > > - make XML namespace in WSDL consistent with the specification > (reflecting Takuya Ishibashi's comment) > > - modify the last part of the introduction section caused by removing > the appendix of Grid File System Profile. > > - 'absolute path' in the second table in Section 1.3.3.1 "move", is > changed to 'full path'. > > * Full path vs absolute path > > - In Section 2.2.1.1 "Referral Messages", the first sentence states > that "all service operations [MUST] accommodate the use of absolute > pathnames," although all input to the service interface is now a > full path. > > - need to accept both a full path and an absolute path for all input > to the service. How to differenciate these two? > > - An absolute path starts with '/', and a full path does not start > with '/'. > > * Other issues > > - Can '.' and '..' be specified as a 'Name'? > > -> Yes. At least, RNS does not need such a restriction. > > FYI: NFS version 4 assigns no special semantics to the names "." and > "..". The LOOKUPP operator must be used to lookup a parent > directory. > > --- > Osamu Tatebe, Ph.D. Tel: +81-29-861-5844 FAX: +81-29-862-6601 > Grid Technology Research Center, > National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) > AIST Tsukuba Central 2, 1-1-1 Umezono, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058568 JAPAN > E-mail: o.tatebe(a)aist.go.jp http://phase.hpcc.jp/people/tatebe/ >

1 0

Document on resource models
by Fred Maciel 07 Aug '05

07 Aug '05

Hi, Here is the current version of the document I'm writing on resource models. I was assuming that the contents of this document would be the basis for the discussions in the face-to-face, but I have been getting mixed signals. In the teleconference I'd like to discuss two things: - What are we discussing in the one day that we allocated for resource models in the face-to-face? Are we discussing resource models on execution management, are we going to make a decision on which resource model we will use, both, or something else? (I thought that we were going to make a decision on what we will use). - If we are going to discuss what we will use, is there anything missing in the document that you would like to see written? Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] Re: [cddlm] Notes from the OGSA EMS & CDDLM meeting
by Ziu, Peter 07 Aug '05

07 Aug '05

Hiro, I thought it might be useful to push up some concept visuals for autonomic/automated provisioning, that may assist in generating some thought and discussion at the face2face. Pete. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Hiro Kishimoto Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 7:35 PM To: Milojicic, Dejan S Cc: cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-wg] Re: [cddlm] Notes from the OGSA EMS & CDDLM meeting Thanks Dejan for the meeting notes, I've put proposed joint session agenda into F2F schedule and update attendees list accordingly. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F- agenda If you have any farther questions/comments, please let me know. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Milojicic, Dejan S wrote: > By phone, 8/3, 2pm-3pm PST. > > Attendees: Mark Morgan, Hiro Kishimoto, Chris Smith, Stuart Schaefer, > Jun Tatemura, Ravi Subramanian, Mike Behrens, Steve Loughran, and > Dejan Milojicic. > > Notes taker: Dejan Milojicic. > > Agenda: > > 1. Go over the two documents (CDDLM Foundation document for EMS people > an the OGSA architecture document for the CDDLM people. > > Dejan suggested that CDDLM is part of the EMS, but there are other > pieces which are out of scope. > > Chris asked about activity v. solution. The answer was that we support > solutions not activities. > > Hiro: can we also support C code, Cobol, etc. The answer is yes, but > we need to support the environments. > > Ravi: we need to resolve the terms between the two groups prior to the > meeting. > > Hiro: there is a glossary document. Good suggestion (Dejan), that way > we can get consistent independently. It is linked off of > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/docman/draft-ggf-ogsa-spe > c/ > en/23. > > Ravi: There is a space for provisioning in the EMS document, we try to > plug in the CDDLM as a virtual exercise. We try to effectively see if > CDDLM is compatible with OGSA. Chris, there are issues with containers. > > Chris: extending JSDL (extensions) with CDDLM or embedding the schemas. > Steve: it is batch -centric. Chris: it is not really. Ravi: keep > provisioning separate from JSDL. Dejan: summary, this is a good > proposal, but for simplicity reasons, we'll keep it out of our > immediate objectives for the time being. > > 2. Agenda for F2F (8/16, 1:30-5 in Sunnyvale): > > Action preparation for the meeting: sync up with glossary (Ravi: also > check up the glossary if we have any comments). > > A) (1:30-1:45) Introduction (learn more about EMS broader picture, in > the past wee overviewed CDDLM) > B) (1:45-3:15) Defining architectural relationship (This is really > related to the pictures we discussed above, Fig 5 in the OGSA arch & > Fig > 7 in CDDLM Foundation) > C) (3:15-3:45) Indebt overview of the CDDLM interfaces (if needed) > D) (3:45-4:15) Description and integration of ACS & CDDLM (Ravi: added > BES as well). > E) (4:15-4:45) Integration roadmap > F) (4:45-5:00) Next steps > > (Dejan: above times are approximate, they may change as needed, e.g. > if we cover some of the later items in earlier sessions) > > Ravi: is this similar to BES interfaces activities. Chris: this was > exactly how I was thinking wrt BES container. We can jump ahead to > conclusion that CDDLM also created container. it is definitely in the > context of BES cause we will run through the BES and we will > automatically se how it fits with BES. The same applies to RSF. It is > almost looking through a use case how do we do with something that is > given to job provisioning. > > Hiro: There is one more important component, ACS. Dejan/Steve, we came > to some agreement with ACS at GGF 14 and there is no need for changes > to CDDLM wrt ACS. Hiro: ACS had a F2F meeting in North Carolina. Mike > prepared a document describing relationship between CDDLM and ACS. Ravi: > we can add the ACS diagram to the figure. (as well as BES), this way > we can tackle multiple birds at the same time. Mike: ACS has taken > requirements wrt contents, there are some security considerations and > creation time issues that would require something other than URL, > maybe service invocation, we can go over these details at F2F. > > 3. Techniques and expectations: > > Dejan: informal approach, discussions, drawing pictures, agreeing on > interfaces, it is ok to have a few more open issues, but resolve them > at latest at GGF15. > > Ravi: can someone bring digital camera, take a snapshot and then send > it, put it on Webex. > > Hiro: expects architectural diagram and text describing components, so > that they can come into the next version of architectural document. > > Ravi: when is the time (Hiro: 1:30-5pm) > > >

2 1

Re: [gfs-wg] RNS critique (new revision available)
by Hiro Kishimoto 06 Aug '05

06 Aug '05

Takuya Ishibashi's email bounced -- Hiro Kishimoto To: gfs-wg(a)ggf.org Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org, ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [gfs-wg] RNS critique (new revision available) From: Takuya Ishibashi <takuya(a)soum.co.jp> Hello Manuel and all, I have questions: * About QNames, do namespace in XML (and Prefix) for QNames have not to be defined strictly in this RNS document? Accoding to some examples in this document, namespace in XML for Required Entry Properties (in section 1.2.2.2.1) and Entry itself is "http://rns.ggf.org". And accoding to RNS WSDL 1.1, namespace in XML (for Inputs, Responses , Faults and ResourceProperties) is "http://rns.ws.ibm.com". * What is a XML datatype of Entry? According to EPRs and LogicalResolvers and Target (these are string) and some examples of <Entry>, I see that the XML datatype of Entry is string. (or any?) And, do the XML schema of Basic Namespace Components (in section 1.1) and Required Entry Properties (in section 1.2.2.2.1) have not to be provided in this RNS document? (as appendix?) Regards, Takuya Ishibashi

1 0

Re: [gfs-wg] RNS critique (new revision available)
by Manuel Pereira 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

Hello Osamu, > Now, all input to the service becomes a full path. Actually it always has been, however it has been presented in such a way that describes the use of an absolute path in all cases; this was done in an attempt to reduce complexity, potential confusion in a federated namespace, and present a consistent globally unique identifier for all namespace objects. (In Section > 1.3.3.1 "move", there still "the absolute path" remains in the second > table.) Right, I was originally thinking of allowing "moves" to occur between RNS providers, however this is simply not facilitated by the specification; a provider-to-provider interface would have to be described and that is out of scope for this revision. It is now changed, thanks! > This means the absolute path is only handled by a client > library not by a service itself. A service does not care about the > absolute path. Root directory is only known by a client. I do not > think there is any problem about this. If "handled" means that the client is the only party that maintains a comprehensive view of the overall federated namespace. The first sentence in section 2.2.1.1 clearly states that "all service operations [MUST] accommodate the use of absolute pathnames." This section goes on to describe how the referral message mechanism is employed to allow dynamic redirection to the appropriate RNS service providers if the path provided is not served by the current provider. > (In Section 1.4.6 "RNSJunctionFault", and in the first paragraph of > Section 2.2.1.1 "Referral Messages", "absolute" path should be "full" > path?) Please see the comments above, these two cases are correct and still valid. > Can we have a teleconference on Friday afternoon (3pm or 4pm) in > California time? This is a good idea and the time should work for me. Best regards, Manuel Pereira ------------------------------------------------------ IBM Almaden Research Center 1-408-927-1935 [Tieline: 457] mpereira(a)us.ibm.com ------------------------------------------------------

2 2

Re: [gfs-wg] RNS critique (new revision available)
by Manuel Pereira 05 Aug '05

05 Aug '05

Hello Takuya and all, > * About QNames, do namespace in XML (and Prefix) for QNames have not > to be defined strictly in this RNS document? This is a very good question. Since RNS has not yet been established as a standard, an official XML namespace has not been defined. This is orthogonal to the specification of the service however. Once the specification becomes a standard, then the appropriate XML namespace and WSDL references will be defined. > Accoding to some examples in this document, namespace in XML for > Required Entry Properties (in section 1.2.2.2.1) and Entry itself is > "http://rns.ggf.org". > > And accoding to RNS WSDL 1.1, namespace in XML (for Inputs, > Responses , Faults and ResourceProperties) is > "http://rns.ws.ibm.com". Actually, all of the examples that use any XML namespace use ?rns.ggf.org? since this particular specification draft is being submitted to GGF for standardization. The ?rns.ws.ibm.com? is only found in the WSDL, which is an actual working WSDL used to build the reference implementation, which is undergoing final development within IBM. The reality is that both of these may change. The official XML namespace may change once RNS becomes a standard, and the WSDL of the reference implementation will eventually match the defined standard. > * What is a XML datatype of Entry? > > According to EPRs and LogicalResolvers and Target (these are string) > and some examples of <Entry>, I see that the XML datatype of Entry > is string. (or any?) This is another good question. As outlined by the WSDL, <Entry> is not defined as a ComplexType. This simply means that Entry is an implicit type defined only in the semantic of the service. The <Entry> element (reflecting the Entry QName) is used to demarcate related property elements in a return message, but since the service is based on document style messaging, it does not define a specific ComplexType for Entry. When the property values associated with a particular entry are returned in a QueryResponse message, the property values are enclosed in an <Entry> envelope within the array of xsd:any elements. > And, do the XML schema of Basic Namespace Components (in section > 1.1) and Required Entry Properties (in section 1.2.2.2.1) have not > to be provided in this RNS document? (as appendix?) Only the QNames must be defined. Section 1.1 presents the ?Type? values possible for any namespace entry. These ?Type? values are literally identified by the QName defined. They are not objects but rather a property value or attribute of an object. For this reason, they are stored as strings and presented by the service in the form of a QName for consistent value comparison. Section 1.2.2.2.1 lists all entry property names. These ?names? are used in the composition of a query to denote which properties the requestor is interested in. Furthermore, they are used to envelope the property values returned in response messages. So these QNames are represented within the WSDL as entry properties only for the purpose of declaring the data types descriptively within the WSDL. I hope that I properly understood your questions, please let me know if I misunderstood you. Best regards, Manuel Pereira ------------------------------------------------------ IBM Almaden Research Center 1-408-927-1935 [Tieline: 457] mpereira(a)us.ibm.com ------------------------------------------------------

1 0

GGF-DMTF Work Register
by Hiro Kishimoto 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

Hi all, Tom Roney, GGF forum-level liaison to DMTF, ask us to review updated GGF-DMTF Work Register document. OGSA-WG already has dialogue with DMTF folks and I think this document is consistent with our on going activity. Thus I would like to put this item into next Monday call agenda. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

4 10

Teleconference minutes - 3 August 2005
by Andreas Savva 04 Aug '05

04 Aug '05

Minutes attached. This was a short call mainly on the GGF-DMTF work register proposal. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050803/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 3 August 2005 =================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Tom Maguire (IBM) Mark Morgan (UVa) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jay Unger (IBM) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Minutes: Andreas Savva * August 1 minutes approved with no changes * GGF-DMTF work item There were some issues raised on the list, mainly in Hiro's emails. - Specific date for deliverables/milestones - In Tom's draft the milestone is Feb 2006. Agreed to 'loosen it up' by changing to 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2006. (Another motivation for this is so as not to compete with the related work item from Data.) - And also reword this milestone as "goal for an initial draft" - In any case, the final deadline will have to be negotiated with the DMTF. But the DMTF will not accept a work item that does not have a milestone. - Text on deliverable (all classes or selected only) - Discussed whether this should be a generic mapping or only for selected classes, and what that would mean. - Agreed to keep the request for 'generic' mapping but change the text from "DMTF will define" to "DMTF will work with OGSA to define". - And also add some words to explain what a 'generic mapping' means. Action: Tom M to revise the work item proposal and send to the list, Tom Roney, and the DMTF TC contacts. When sending to the DMTF TC, make it clear that this is a *tentative* proposal, not yet approved by the GFSG. * August F2F update Hiro updated schedule based on Monday's discussion. He contacted and got approvals from the affected group chairs. There was an OGSA EMS-CDDLM phone call before this call. Hiro has received an agenda for the OGDA-CDDLM F2F session and will merge it in the overall agenda. * OGSA Architecture and Glossary 1.5 No update. * Next Call Schedule ** Monday - Resource modelling discussion - Fred has started circulating a first draft to a small group of people. It will be reviewed Monday to check that it addresses the right area but detailed discussion on the content will be left for the F2F. - Provisioning ** Wednesday - OGSA AuthZ - Architecture and Glossary 1.5

1 0

Notes from the OGSA EMS & CDDLM meeting
by Milojicic, Dejan S 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

By phone, 8/3, 2pm-3pm PST. Attendees: Mark Morgan, Hiro Kishimoto, Chris Smith, Stuart Schaefer, Jun Tatemura, Ravi Subramanian, Mike Behrens, Steve Loughran, and Dejan Milojicic. Notes taker: Dejan Milojicic. Agenda: 1. Go over the two documents (CDDLM Foundation document for EMS people an the OGSA architecture document for the CDDLM people. Dejan suggested that CDDLM is part of the EMS, but there are other pieces which are out of scope. Chris asked about activity v. solution. The answer was that we support solutions not activities. Hiro: can we also support C code, Cobol, etc. The answer is yes, but we need to support the environments. Ravi: we need to resolve the terms between the two groups prior to the meeting. Hiro: there is a glossary document. Good suggestion (Dejan), that way we can get consistent independently. It is linked off of https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/docman/draft-ggf-ogsa-spec/ en/23. Ravi: There is a space for provisioning in the EMS document, we try to plug in the CDDLM as a virtual exercise. We try to effectively see if CDDLM is compatible with OGSA. Chris, there are issues with containers. Chris: extending JSDL (extensions) with CDDLM or embedding the schemas. Steve: it is batch -centric. Chris: it is not really. Ravi: keep provisioning separate from JSDL. Dejan: summary, this is a good proposal, but for simplicity reasons, we'll keep it out of our immediate objectives for the time being. 2. Agenda for F2F (8/16, 1:30-5 in Sunnyvale): Action preparation for the meeting: sync up with glossary (Ravi: also check up the glossary if we have any comments). A) (1:30-1:45) Introduction (learn more about EMS broader picture, in the past wee overviewed CDDLM) B) (1:45-3:15) Defining architectural relationship (This is really related to the pictures we discussed above, Fig 5 in the OGSA arch & Fig 7 in CDDLM Foundation) C) (3:15-3:45) Indebt overview of the CDDLM interfaces (if needed) D) (3:45-4:15) Description and integration of ACS & CDDLM (Ravi: added BES as well). E) (4:15-4:45) Integration roadmap F) (4:45-5:00) Next steps (Dejan: above times are approximate, they may change as needed, e.g. if we cover some of the later items in earlier sessions) Ravi: is this similar to BES interfaces activities. Chris: this was exactly how I was thinking wrt BES container. We can jump ahead to conclusion that CDDLM also created container. it is definitely in the context of BES cause we will run through the BES and we will automatically se how it fits with BES. The same applies to RSF. It is almost looking through a use case how do we do with something that is given to job provisioning. Hiro: There is one more important component, ACS. Dejan/Steve, we came to some agreement with ACS at GGF 14 and there is no need for changes to CDDLM wrt ACS. Hiro: ACS had a F2F meeting in North Carolina. Mike prepared a document describing relationship between CDDLM and ACS. Ravi: we can add the ACS diagram to the figure. (as well as BES), this way we can tackle multiple birds at the same time. Mike: ACS has taken requirements wrt contents, there are some security considerations and creation time issues that would require something other than URL, maybe service invocation, we can go over these details at F2F. 3. Techniques and expectations: Dejan: informal approach, discussions, drawing pictures, agreeing on interfaces, it is ok to have a few more open issues, but resolve them at latest at GGF15. Ravi: can someone bring digital camera, take a snapshot and then send it, put it on Webex. Hiro: expects architectural diagram and text describing components, so that they can come into the next version of architectural document. Ravi: when is the time (Hiro: 1:30-5pm)

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] GGF-DMTF Work Register
by Andrea Westerinen (andreaw) 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

Fred, Just to be clear ... You say "A resource model has semantics and a rendering. The semantics are just, say, a UML model with some textual descriptions. CIM itself only has semantics." This is indeed true - but UML classes (and CIM) have both properties and operations. The operations are behavior - and while their implementation is not specified, their parameters are defined. Andrea > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Fred Maciel > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:30 AM > To: Donal K. Fellows; Tom Maguire > Cc: Ellen Stokes; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Tom Roney > Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] GGF-DMTF Work Register > > Hi Donal, > > > Tom Maguire wrote: > > > So my point is: > > > 1) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative xml expression > > > 2) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative wsdl expression > > > > > > For specific, specific disciplines we undoubtedly will use > > portions of > > > CIM. We (OGSA) will undoubtedly use portions of other > > resource models > > > (perhaps IETF for networking). All of the models we use > > MUST meet the > > > normative low bar above 1 & 2. > > > > I wasn't aware that resource models were inherently > services. They're > > just a way of describing the terms used in some data > relating to the > > description of a resource, surely? Or do you distinguish between > > purely passive descriptive models and active manipulable > models of a > > resource? > > I don't know if you were in the teleconference (we gave some > more background on this there), so here is a rather short > clarification. > > A resource model has semantics and a rendering. The semantics > are just, say, a UML model with some textual descriptions. > CIM itself only has semantics. > If you want to access or exchange information using the model > semantics you need a rendering -- say, a mapping of the > semantics over XML, plus a binding over a given network > protocol, etc. I presume that by "services" and "active > manipulable model" you mean the rendering. So, I agree that, > the model [semantics] are not services. > > What we are proposing to the DMTF is to create a rendering, > but not down to the bindings. It's just an XML representation > of CIM, plus *part* of the WSDL definition. The most concise > way that I can explain this is: > "everything that can be made common among multiple OGSA basic > profiles". > > Hope that helps, > > Fred Maciel > Hitachi America R&D >

2 1

Teleconference minutes - 1 August 2005
by Andreas Savva 03 Aug '05

03 Aug '05

Minutes attached (really this time). Topics: * F2F update * OGSA Roadmap public comment review * GGF-DMTF register discussion * OGSA Architecture and Glossary 1.5 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050801/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 1 August 2005 =================================== * Participants Jay Unger (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC) Tom Maguire (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Apologies: Mike Behrens, Pete Ziu, Chris Smith Minutes: Andreas Savva * July 27 minutes approved with no changes * WSRF BP 1.0 update WSRF BP 1.0 was submitted to the GGF Editor last Friday. * F2F update - Some security members can attend on Monday only. Others can join by phone but only during Monday morning. - Some BES members may be available only on Monday. - Agreed to shift Monday & Tuesday schedule: - Security starting at 09:30-10:30 - BES shifted by 1:30 hours - RSS for the last 90 minutes of the day; continuing on Tuesday morning. Actions: - Takuya to confirm new schedule with security participants - Andreas to confirm with Darren Pulsipher (BES) - Hiro to confirm with RSS group - Friday morning is scheduled for OGSA Arch 1.5 & Glossary 1.5 - Jem has a conflict and may not be able to dial in. - The Data group does not need a slot this F2F. - Agreed to move the OGSA Arch 1.5 and Glossary 1.5 discussion to Thursday afternoon Action: Hiro will update draft agenda and circulate before the next call. * OGSA Roadmap public comment review - Quick overview of the submitted public comments. - "Quality of work not..." The two bullets at the bottom of page 3 do not say that, but it may be somewhat implied. Agreed to revise text. - Also deleted "...rushing to this task..." in the leading paragraph. - "Normative OGSA ...": Jem to come up with revised text. - "Recommended profile": Add an explanatory sentence and citation to the Profile definition document. - Add new projects (submitted text) and change the list of projects at the top of section 8 so that additions or deletions do not cause changes. - Satoshi Itoh's comment. Agreed that it cannot be addressed in Roadmap 1.0. Leave for a future version of the Roadmap. - Toshi Nakata's comment: Partly along the same lines as Itoh's. Agreed this is future work. - Also - WS-Agreement is already mentioned as part of section 5.2.2. - It should also be mentioned in a potential Data profile as well. - Agreed to OGSA-AuthZ document addition. Action: Takuya will provide an entry for OGSA-AuthZ document by next week. Action: Jem will prepare a revision of the Roadmap based on the public comments for review next week. * GGF-DMTF register discussion Ref: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/07/msg00117.html ** Background There is an existing agreement between GGF and DMTF but it is obsolete. Tom Rooney was asked to update it. The question is whether OGSA has any concrete items for this work register. ** Milestones / Dates section - The current draft says "The DMTF will publicize the following..." - Agreed that this is a good start - It would also be useful to have WSDL for abstract porttypes for operations and properties defined by CIM so as to be able to mix in with GGF specifications, e.g., BES. - WS-CIM is doing this kind of work but for management endpoints. - Expect this mapping to XML to be generic. It should be common across multiple profiles. It should answer the question of "how to take a CIM class and express it as an abstract porttype and then use it in another specification." - Other groups (DAIS) have similar requirements; these requirements are partly represented by the last bullet in the current draft. - This rendering work is independent and separate from the resource modelling work that Fred is doing (change requests to the model). The modelling work is not part of this register. - This rendering may be part of the work of the WS-CIM WG or a subgroup. It would be nice (but not essential) to be able to point out which group should take this on. Action: Tom to draw up text and send out to the list within the day. If there are no objections, send the text to Tom Rooney and put forward to the DMTF TC. (There is a TC call tomorrow hence the need for urgency.) * OGSA Architecture and Glossary 1.5 Andreas gave an overview of what changes he expects to see in the Architecture document for the next version. (The Glossary is a companion to the Architecture document and should be updated accordingly.) - OGSA 1.5 is probably a conservative update. There is a lot of work in progress but it has not reached the level that can produce a substantially revised document. - A number of comments for OGSA 1.0 were postponed for later versions. All of these do not have to be addressed in 1.5 but they offer a starting point. A modified spreadsheet with these comments is uploaded on gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/deferred-ogsa-1.0-pub… (The name of the previous owner of each section and people who volunteered to work on it are in parentheses.) ** Abstract (Andreas) - Minor changes to bring in line with revised document ** 1. Introduction (Andreas) - Minor changes to bring in line with revised document ** 2. Requirements (Andreas) - Minor changes since the requirements are drawn from the use cases. - Are there any other new use cases that should be added? Probably not for this version. ** 3.1 Overview ** 3.2 OGSA Framework (Ravi?, Jem, Andreas) - From the 1.0 public comments there is a disconnect between this section and the rest of the document. Since architectural work is paused it might be worth trying to simplify and tie it in better with the rest of the document. There were also some terminology problems. ** 3.3 Infrastructure (Ian?, Tom, Jem) - It should be updated to reflect the work done on the Basic Profile. - Tom and Jem agreed to work on this section. - WSDM is mentioned in this section but work has not progressed sufficiently to make more concrete statements here or in other sections. Review status again at the F2F. - Naming should probably be moved to this section from Information services. (>Andrew) ** 3.4 Execution Management (Andrew) - At least minor changes to update with ongoing work in BES, RSS etc. - The terminology problems left unresolved in 1.0 should be fixed. ** 3.5 Data (Dave B) - The Data group(s) have been quite active. There is a draft Data Architecture document so this section should be updated to give a summary of that document, in the same way that [3.6 RM] is a condensed version of GFD-I.45. So a major revision of this section may be required. - There is a scheduling problem since the final version of the Data Architecture document is due in December. Agreed that an update based on a snapshot of that document would be acceptable. ** 3.6 Resource Management (Fred) From the public comments: - Look into refining sections 3.6.3 and 3.6.5. And from recent activities an update may be needed to include the results of the resource modelling work. Fred is working on a resource modelling document which will be reviewed next week. ** 3.7 Security (Frank, Takuya) Expecting minor revisions. - Can sections 3.7.5 and 3.7.6 be refined more? - Are other revisions are necessary to include the OGSA Authorization Attributes work? ** 3.8 Self-management (Jeffrin?, Andreas, Tom) Minor revisions, if any. This topic has been put on hold by the group. Tom volunteered to help with this section. ** 3.9 Information (Bill?, Abdeslem, Andrew?) - Minor revisions since the Information Architecture document is on hold. - Some updates for the INFO-D work may be in order. - Naming should be moved out of this section and updated. ** Glossary This is a companion document and should be updated accordingly. ** Overall - Make sure that the document is tied better together---especially but not limited to the "Interactions with the rest of OGSA" sections in each capability section. - The level of description of the various capabilities should, as far as possible, be made more consistent. But this is difficult to achieve since work on the capabilities is not progressing uniformly. Andreas to follow up with capability owners. * Next Call - F2F update (if any) - OGSA 1.5 discussion (depending on who is present)

3 2

RE: [ogsa-wg] GGF-DMTF Work Register
by Fred Maciel 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi Donal, > Tom Maguire wrote: > > So my point is: > > 1) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative xml expression > > 2) ANY resource model we use MUST have a normative wsdl expression > > > > For specific, specific disciplines we undoubtedly will use > portions of > > CIM. We (OGSA) will undoubtedly use portions of other > resource models > > (perhaps IETF for networking). All of the models we use > MUST meet the > > normative low bar above 1 & 2. > > I wasn't aware that resource models were inherently services. They're > just a way of describing the terms used in some data relating to the > description of a resource, surely? Or do you distinguish > between purely > passive descriptive models and active manipulable models of a > resource? I don't know if you were in the teleconference (we gave some more background on this there), so here is a rather short clarification. A resource model has semantics and a rendering. The semantics are just, say, a UML model with some textual descriptions. CIM itself only has semantics. If you want to access or exchange information using the model semantics you need a rendering -- say, a mapping of the semantics over XML, plus a binding over a given network protocol, etc. I presume that by "services" and "active manipulable model" you mean the rendering. So, I agree that, the model [semantics] are not services. What we are proposing to the DMTF is to create a rendering, but not down to the bindings. It's just an XML representation of CIM, plus *part* of the WSDL definition. The most concise way that I can explain this is: "everything that can be made common among multiple OGSA basic profiles". Hope that helps, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Proposed agenda for Aug 3rd call
by Hiro Kishimoto 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Aug. 3rd Wednesday from 5pm to 7pm (CDT). We expect to have short call on Wednesday. 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: 0803 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 (if available) Agenda bashing 2) August F2F meeting update (20 min) > Proposed modifications are: > (1) Put OGSA security design team session in 9-10:30am Monday. > OGSA-AuthZ-WG folks will also join this session (by phone) > (2) Move OGSA-BES from 9am-12:30pm to 10:30am-3pm Monday > (3) Move OGSA-RSS from 1:30-5pm to 3-5pm Mon and 9-10:30am Tuesday. > (4) Shorten OGSA-ByteIO from 9am-12:30pm to 10:30am-12:30pm Tuesday. > (5) Move OGSA Arch 1.5 discussion from Fri morning to Thur afternoon. > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… > > If it does not work for you, please let me know. 3) OGSA architecture 1.5 discussion (30 min) 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Aug. 8 (Mon) Resource Modeling discussion, Provisioning, F2F preparation Aug. 10 (Wed) OGSA-AuthZ-WG, roadmap, F2F preparation Aug. 15-19 F2F meeting https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

Aug F2F meeting draft agenda
by Hiro Kishimoto 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi all, Attached is the early draft of the August F2F meeting in SF Bay Area. Please have a look, we will review this at tomorrow's OGSA call. As usual, the file is also uploaded to the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

2 2

RM -- No teleconference on August 2nd
by Fred Maciel 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi, No Resource Management design team teleconference on August 2nd. I started working on the resource management document that we will discuss on the face-to-face meeting, which I will post to the mailing list later this week. We will review it in the OGSA-WG teleconference on the 8th. Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Proposed agenda for Aug. 1st call
by Fred Maciel 01 Aug '05

01 Aug '05

Hi, > I would like to suggest that the OGSA-WG formally ask the > DMTF to provide a > mapping of CIM classes to an abstract portType. Specifically > utilizing the > XML schema (already in the work register) and adding a mapping for CIM > class extrinsic operations to wsdl:operations. I agree. Regards, Fred Maciel.

1 0

Proposed agenda for Aug. 1st call
by Hiro Kishimoto 01 Aug '05

01 Aug '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on August 1st 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: 0801 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-20050727/en/1 F2F update (if any) - Revised agenda (with dial-in info) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… Agenda bashing 2) Roadmap doc public comments (30 min) Jem will report what we got finally. - PB tracker: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540 3) OGSA Arch & Glossary 1.5 (60 min) Andreas and Jem will explain a plan for 1.5 development. 4) GGF-DMTF work register review (30 min) > Tom Roney, GGF forum-level liaison to DMTF, ask us to review > updated GGF-DMTF Work Register document. 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Aug. 3 (Wed) <TBD> Aug. 8 (Mon) Resource Modeling discussion, Provisioning, F2F preparation Aug. 10 (Wed) OGSA-AuthZ-WG, roadmap, F2F preparation Aug. 15-19 F2F meeting https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

3 2

Submission to GGF-Editor of OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0
by Tom Maguire 29 Jul '05

29 Jul '05

Folks, Thanks for all the final call comments. Good catches all. I have submitted the OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 document to the GGF-Editor. The version that was submitted included minor edits and nits from the final call comments. All of the edits have been discussed on the mailing list. The version that was submitted is: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… Good work everyone! Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

RE: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL Document OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v036
by Treadwell, Jem 29 Jul '05

29 Jul '05

Tom, my annotated review attached. I gather that you've already incorporated comments from others, so this is based on a clean copy of v36. Most of these are, of course, minor nits, and some are just periods or colons added. However, there are a couple that are quite significant, most notably the use of MAY NOT in Appendix E. Your discretion on which of these you incorporate, and I vote YES to go to the editor. Great job by you and the whole team! - Jem > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Tom Maguire > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 11:48 PM > To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL Document OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v036 > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-gg > f-ogsa-wsrf-basic-profile/en/31 > > > The final call document for the OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 > is available for download at the above link. Please review > and positive acknowledge with an email to the mailing list > with your vote (yea or nay) for submission from the workgroup > to the GGF Editor. Please vote (email) by Friday, July 29th > COB (EDT). > > If your vote is 'nay' please include precise comments so that > we may address any substantive issues you may have prior to > submission. > > Thanks, > Tom > > > Frey's Law: "Every 5 years the number of architecture > components double and the ability to comprehend them halves" > > > 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 >

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL Document OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v036
by Srinivasan, Latha 29 Jul '05

29 Jul '05

Tom, Looks good. I have some minor nits/ modifications that I made on Hiro's version, so hopefully you don't have to go through merge nightmares. They are not show stoppers necessarily, so my vote is a yea. Regards, Latha -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 11:02 AM To: Tom Maguire Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL Document OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v036 Hi Just some fairly minor comments, othewise yea, go for it. I'll leave it up to Tom to decide on the 3 points below. Abdeslem ==================================================================== Section 2: line 184: should the conformance claim URI be "http://www.ggf.org/namespaces/2005/07/OGSAWSRFBasicProfile-1.0" and, I guess if we include WSRF here, all other namespaces (in schema) should also be changed. Section 4: line 267: DO you mean wsdl:Service or wsdl:Service/port? in WSDL 1.1 a Service can aggregate many ports. Anyway the sentence is not clear: "a list of all portTypes that were used to compose the wsdl:Service"? Do you mean the portTypes corresponding to different ports, or the list of known portTypes that were composed together to make a new portType for this Service/port? Section 4.4.1: line 366: RECOMMENDS should be MANDATES in order to be consistent with section 6.1 where the profile MANDATES the use NotificationProducer for notifications of events from resources. ==================================================================== Tom Maguire wrote: > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-w > srf-basic-profile/en/31 > > > The final call document for the OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 is > available for download at the above link. Please review and positive > acknowledge with an email to the mailing list with your vote (yea or > nay) for submission from the workgroup to the GGF Editor. Please vote > (email) by Friday, July 29th COB (EDT). > > If your vote is 'nay' please include precise comments so that we may > address any substantive issues you may have prior to submission. > > Thanks, > Tom > > > Frey's Law: "Every 5 years the number of architecture components > double and the ability to comprehend them halves" > > > 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 > >

2 1

RE: [ogsa-wg] FINAL CALL Document OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v036
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 29 Jul '05

29 Jul '05

Hi Just some fairly minor comments, othewise yea, go for it. I'll leave it up to Tom to decide on the 3 points below. Abdeslem ==================================================================== Section 2: line 184: should the conformance claim URI be "http://www.ggf.org/namespaces/2005/07/OGSAWSRFBasicProfile-1.0" and, I guess if we include WSRF here, all other namespaces (in schema) should also be changed. Section 4: line 267: DO you mean wsdl:Service or wsdl:Service/port? in WSDL 1.1 a Service can aggregate many ports. Anyway the sentence is not clear: "a list of all portTypes that were used to compose the wsdl:Service"? Do you mean the portTypes corresponding to different ports, or the list of known portTypes that were composed together to make a new portType for this Service/port? Section 4.4.1: line 366: RECOMMENDS should be MANDATES in order to be consistent with section 6.1 where the profile MANDATES the use NotificationProducer for notifications of events from resources. ==================================================================== Tom Maguire wrote: > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… > > > The final call document for the OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 is available > for download at the above link. Please > review and positive acknowledge with an email to the mailing list with your > vote (yea or nay) for submission from > the workgroup to the GGF Editor. Please vote (email) by Friday, July 29th > COB (EDT). > > If your vote is 'nay' please include precise comments so that we may > address any substantive issues you may have > prior to submission. > > Thanks, > Tom > > > Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and > the ability to comprehend them halves” > > > 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 > >

2 1

FINAL CALL Document OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v036
by Tom Maguire 29 Jul '05

29 Jul '05

https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… The final call document for the OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 is available for download at the above link. Please review and positive acknowledge with an email to the mailing list with your vote (yea or nay) for submission from the workgroup to the GGF Editor. Please vote (email) by Friday, July 29th COB (EDT). If your vote is 'nay' please include precise comments so that we may address any substantive issues you may have prior to submission. Thanks, Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

2 3

Teleconference minutes - 27 July 2005
by Andreas Savva 29 Jul '05

29 Jul '05

Minutes attached. * Roadmap document: Public comment discussion * F2F update * WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 review https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050727/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] RNS critique (new revision available)
by Manuel Pereira 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

Hello All, In light of Dave Berry?s comments and considering the work already done, I would like to propose that we keep the resolver operations, at least for now. If necessary, we can always factor them out into a separate document in a later revision, provided that there is an equivalent replacement. This implies the continued use of logical names (abstract names) within RNS and thus the inclusion and description of the logical reference (section 1.1.2.2). The latest revision has been posted to GridForge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gfs-wg/document/RNS-Proposed_Final_Dra… Major revisions include: - Completely revised ?Alias Junction? description in section 1.1.2.4 - Revised section 1.1.2.2, previously ?Virtualized Reference Junction? now made consistent with other terminology to be ?Logical Reference Junction? - Section 1.2.2.2.1 updated to reflect revised property names and corresponding values for logical references - Updated all of the namespace and implicit operations to incorporate the said revisions - Updated section 2, with a particular emphasis in section 2.2.1.1 in an attempt to better describe the referral message - Updated the table in section 3.3.1 to reflect the use of the ?LogicalName? property throughout section 3 - Completely removed the Grid File System naming profile from the appendix - Absolute vs. Full Paths were elaborated and hopefully clarified - Description for mechanisms for namespace federation revised - Repository description explicitly clarified Best regards, Manuel Pereira =============================== IBM Almaden Research Center 1-408-927-1935 [T/L 457] mpereira(a)us.ibm.com owner-ogsa-naming-wg(a)ggf.org wrote on 07/22/2005 01:37:18 PM: > I'm a bit concerned about removing the mapping to logical names. I > thought the e-mail reply to Andrew's criticism seemed valid - we have a > three-tier naming system in OGSA, so it makes sense for RNS to support a > mapping to logical names. This remains true even if the spec for these > logical names is provided by a different group. > > I know that WS-Names are likely to be EPRs, which perhaps simplifies the > system. Is it sufficient for RNS to support mappings to EPRs and for > the context to determine whether those EPRs are logical names or > physical names? > > Dave. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-gfs-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-gfs-wg@ggf.org] On > > Behalf Of Osamu Tatebe > > Sent: 22 July 2005 04:18 > > To: gfs-wg(a)ggf.org > > Subject: [gfs-wg] Minutes of 7/20,21 GFS-WG Conference call > > > > Hi all, > > > > Please look at minutes of the last conference call. The discussion > > includes several changes and decisions for the final RNS document. > > > > Thanks, > > Osamu > > > > --- > > GFS-WG conference call > > Wednesday, July 20, 2005 > > 3:30pm to 5pm (PDT) > > > > Note taker: Osamu Tatebe (AIST) > > > > Participants > > ------------ > > Manuel Pereira > > Ken Wood > > Arun Jagatheesan > > Osamu Tatebe > > > > Agenda > > ------ > > Introduction & agenda bushing ( 5min) > > Recent change (10min) > > Alias junction issues (30min) > > Other minor issues (15min) > > > > Meeting > > ------- > > * Recent change from the document on July 8 > > > > https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/gfs-wg/document/RNS-Propo > sed_Final_Draft-v1.7/en/7 > > > > - reflect comments from OGSA-WG > > > > o Appendix of Grid File System Profile > > > > - better to focus RNS. keeping consistency level is important. > > basically, appendix is not so important. > > > > - we will start Grid File System Profile document as a separate > > document from next week. > > > > -> The appendix will be taken out > > > > o Section 3 "Resource Endpoint Resolution Service" > > > > - this part will be taken over by OGSA Naming WG. > > > > -> The Section 3 will be taken out > > > > o WS-enumeration > > > > - Microsoft proposes WS-enumeration that provides similar > > functionality of iterator in list operation. > > > > -> WS-enumeration specification is not standardized yet. it lacks > > features to improve performance. we can follow the spec once it > > is standardized. > > > > * Alias junction issues > > > > - Background: alias junction emulates a hardlink functionality. > > Once, we are using OID to specify a target of an alias junction. > > In this case, we just care about AliasCount of the target entry to > > avoid to be a broken reference. On the other hand, we take out OID > > completely in the document, and use pathname to specify a target > > entry instead. In this case, an alias junction may be orphaned > > when one of entries in the pathname is moved or renamed. Section > > 1.1.2.4 "Alias Junction" needs to be modified. > > > > - Two options; > > > > (1) add the above constraint in the third paragraph "Prohibit > > modification of the target" > > > > (2) make alias junction an optional feature of RNS, while the > > service needs to update the TargetPath property dynamically if > > it supports the alias junction. > > > > -> We choose (2) since it is simpler and reasonable. > > > > * Other issues in RNS Specification > > > > - There is a comment from OGSA-WG such that RNS should be simple and > > does not need to have several types in Junction. > > > > o Since we take out the RNS Resolver in Section 3, logical name does > > not make sence so much. So, we can collapse Endpoint Reference > > Junction and Virtualized Reference Junction. Also, Alias Junction > > is now an optional junction. > > > > -> We will have three types of junctions; > > > > o Endpoint Reference Junction > > o Referral Junction > > o Alias Junction [optional] > > > > Referral Junction is a special type of Endpoint Reference Junction, > > which points to an entry in (separate) RNS. On the other hand, for > > easy federation of RNSs (this is quite a typical usage of RNS), to > > have a separate type is reasonable. > > > > - In Figure 2 in Section 2 "Federation of Resource Namespace > > Service", Path specified in list operation to the RNS > > (research.acme.org) seems to be a full path not an absolute path. > > Need to clarify this. > > > > * Submission plan > > > > - After reflecting above changes, we will distribute the final > > release candidate. We will submit it in the *first week of > > August*, although we try to reflect every comments from now to the > > submission date. > > > > * Architecture Informational Document > > > > - soon, it will be in 30-days public comment phase. > > - Osamu suggests strongly to take out the Section 4.5 Standard > > Interfaces since it is confusing. > > > > - we need to start architectural sketch for every POSIX I/O > > operations as soon as possible. > > > > * F2F meeting > > > > - for further collaboration with SNIA and other groups, we will set > > up a f2f meeting in August. Details are discussed later. > > > > --- > > Osamu Tatebe, Ph.D. Tel: +81-29-861-5844 FAX: +81-29-862-6601 > > Grid Technology Research Center, > > National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and > > Technology (AIST) > > AIST Tsukuba Central 2, 1-1-1 Umezono, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058568 JAPAN > > E-mail: o.tatebe(a)aist.go.jp http://phase.hpcc.jp/people/tatebe/ > > > > >

1 0

OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 draft 035
by Tom Maguire 28 Jul '05

28 Jul '05

https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… Added note to R0429 for QueryResourceProperties serialization (line 342-353); additionally added to non-normative references to Canonical XML and Exclusive XML Canonicalization. This completes all of the open trackers. The document is clean (no markup) and ready for final call vote. Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

WSRF BP 1.0 draft 33
by Andreas Savva 27 Jul '05

27 Jul '05

Hiro and I fixed some nits and minor inconsistencies. I also accepted old changes that had been reviewed in previous calls. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1581] WS-I BSP 1.0 and SAML 1.0 are "Evolving Institutional" status
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 27 Jul '05

27 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1581 Submitted by: Hiro Kishimoto Submitted date: 2005-07-27 16:18:21 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1581&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1581&group_id…) Summary: WS-I BSP 1.0 and SAML 1.0 are "Evolving Institutional" status Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1581 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 3 Last Modified By: Hiro Kishimoto Last Modified: 2005-07-27 16:18:21 Submitted By: Hiro Kishimoto Submit Date: 2005-07-27 16:18:21 Assigned To: &lt;None&gt; File(s): <None> Description: Given both WS-I Basic Security Profile and SAML Token Profile are WS-I Working Group Documents instead of WS-I final materials, their status shuold be "Evolving Institutional." View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Roadmap - 1580] Comments from Olegario Hernandez
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1580 Submitted by: Jem Treadwell Submitted date: 2005-07-26 16:02:27 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=789&aid=1580&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=789&aid=1580&group_id…) File(s) Added: 'Roadmap_Comments_from_Oleg.doc' Summary: Comments from Olegario Hernandez Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Roadmap Artifact ID: 1580 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 1 Last Modified By: Jem Treadwell Last Modified: 2005-07-26 16:02:27 Submitted By: Jem Treadwell Submit Date: 2005-07-26 16:02:27 Assigned To: Jem Treadwell File(s): Roadmap_Comments_from_Oleg.doc Description: The attached comments were received from Olegario during the public comment period (7/26/2005). - Jem Treadwell Hi, attached are my comments regarding the Roadmap document. I liked it. Regards, Olegario Hernandez IBM Certified ODB Solution Designer Civil Chemical Engineer - Universidad de Chile (56) 2 220 5168 Santiago - Chile View the Roadmap : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1579] Need BaseFault Extension constraint
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1579 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-26 12:21:37 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1579&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1579&group_id…) Summary: Need BaseFault Extension constraint Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1579 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-26 12:21:37 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-26 12:21:37 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: The PR BaseFaults spec added extensibility which causes UPA validation errors for extensions. Need a constraint that precludes child elements in extensions. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

Small update to BP 1.0 v032
by Tom Maguire 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

Needed better description of BaseFaults Extension requirement and in doing so required a normative reference to XML Schema Part 1. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

call to discuss security comments
by Tom Maguire 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

Folks I would like to have a telecon tomorrow to dicsuss some of the comments that the cc: list has raised on section 8 of the OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 document. If possible I would like all those on the cc list to attend. I am thinking that either 11AM EDT or 12PM EDT for a 1 hour duration. Please let me know your availability. Call-in Details Toll/International: +1(314)655-1412 Toll-free: +1(877)422-0036 Passcode: 496684# Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

2 2

OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v031 uploaded
by Tom Maguire 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

Changes based on the telecon of 7/25 have been made and uploaded to the gridforge. Please take some time and verify (before 7/27) that trackers in the fixed state have been faithfully addressed in this version. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

Teleconference minutes - 25 July 2005
by Andreas Savva 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

Minutes attached - F2F update - Teleconference schedule review - WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 review https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050725/en/1 -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - 25 July 2005 ================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Takuya Mori (NEC) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Apologies: Fred Maciel, Steven Newhouse Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes of July 20 approved with no changes * August F2F update First version of agenda sent out by Hiro: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… Venue: Fujitsu Laboratories America, Sunnyvale, CA - The meeting will be held in the same building as last year, but in a different, larger, room. - An additional room is reserved for Tuesday morning for the OGSA-EGA meeting (parallel session). - Internet access will be available. - There are more participants expected overall but many people will probably attend some sessions only. - The agenda is still in an early draft stage. Session leaders are expected to provide an agenda for their sessions. - OGSA-AuthZ WG participants have not been contacted yet. - Jem does not know if he can attend yet. * Teleconference schedule review Hiro put together a proposal for the teleconference schedule based on next items discussion (previous call) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/en/26 - Provisioning: There is some ongoing work within other bodies (e.g., DMTF Utility Computing WG, EGA). OGSA-WG should work to make clear how this work fits with other efforts. (Any overlapping effort at this moment is probably 'people overlap'. That is, the same people may be involved in more than one group.) - Aug 10: The plan is to invite OGSA-AuthZ to join the teleconference. This is in part to make sure the F2F is productive. - Agreed to move the OGSA 1.5 discussion from Wed (7/27) to Monday (8/3) to give Andreas and Jem some more time to prepare. - Agreed to move the Roadmap from 8/27 to 8/10. It is not expected that a revision of the Roadmap document will take a long time. - There is time allocated to resource modelling starting next week. * WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 review Based on version 30 uploaded by Tom before the call: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… Tom deleted existing comments from the document and put them in trackers. [Issue numbers are tracker artifact numbers on the gridforge BP tracker: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…] - Issue 1571: TLS extensions not in WS-I BSP 1.0 Hiro has confirmed that they are present in the BSP 1.0. Closed. - Issue 1559: l.483 remaining issue is the combination of 'only...permitted'. Agreed that for consistency with the rest of the text it should be changed to 'only....recommended.' Fixed. - Sec.6.1.1 Updated R0611 and R0612 to use the terms defined in the referenced WS-N documents: UseNotify changed to UseRaw; Filter, etc. R0617, R0618: deleted by accident. Rejected deletion and made similar terminology changes to bring up to date with current WS-N specification. The R06XX statements need re-numbering for consistency. - l.630: URI reference was deleted since it was not cited in the text. - Some URIs in the document were hyperlinks. Removed the hyperlinks. - SchemaCentricCanonicalization issues - Issues raised on serialization by Takuya in the last call. Some were retracted after a re-read of the canonicalization specification. (In particular the inefficient serialization issue.) - The remaining issue is with defining an envelope for the query response to hold the type of the XPath return value. - The issuer of the query should know what the return value is going to be. Anyway this information is best described in the data not the message. - Agreed that serialization is essential for interoperability and has to be defined in the BP. But that this extra definition is nice-to-have and probably best left to higher levels (JAX-RPC etc.) - GGF IPR in the schema - Consensus that it is ok to leave the full version in. It is somewhat verbose but it is on the safe side. It can be changed later if GGF comes up with a guideline. - R0423: the namespace should be wsrf-rpw - Issue 1242: verified and closed - Issue 1250: verified and closed - Issue 1251: verified and closed - Issue 1255: verified and closed - Issue 1256: verified and closed - Issue 1258: R0431: minor inconsistency: Change MUST to SHOULD - Verify and close in the next version - Issue 1294: Verified and closed. - But note that this spec refers to WS-I BSP 1.0 dated 20-Jan-2005. WS-I had updated the date of this spec but has not changed the version number (new date is 11-May-2005). Agreed to leave the citation as is. Action: Takuya will check for differences between the two versions and will report back to the group. - Issue 1320: verified and closed - Issue 1355: verified and closed - Issue 1360: Closed (as obsolete; insufficient description.) Note that the Base Faults PR spec has an extensibility element in the schema that causes indeterminism. A later draft has fixed it but it cannot be referenced yet. The extensibility point should be addded to Sec.7.1. Also to add a restriction that only type extension is allowed. And that no extensibility elements are allowed. Action: Tom has the pen and will update the document with the above changes. Action: ALL should check FIXED trackers before the next call to expedite the verification process. * Next call - WSRF BP final call - Review changes - Tracker review and verification.

1 0

Proposed agenda for July 27th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

Hi all, Public comment period for "OGSA roadmap" will end this Friday (July 29). Please read (or encourage your colleagues to read) and make your/their comments on the web site. https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540 The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on July 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: 0727 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call Telecon minutes approval (Andreas will send out) Agenda bashing 2) OGSA F2F meeting update (if any) 3) OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 final call (60 min) Tom will upload revised version to the GridForge. Tom will host separate BP security call Tue 11am or noon Make all issues on the tracker to "closed" Final call on GGF Editor submission on this Friday 4) Wrap up (10 min) AOB Aug. 1 (Mon) OGSA roadmap public comments review, OGSA Arch 1.5 Aug. 3 (Wed) Resource Modeling discussion Aug. 8 (Mon) Provisioning, F2F preparation https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ (also attached to this email) ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0

RNS critique
by Andrew Grimshaw 26 Jul '05

26 Jul '05

All, Here are some of my comments on the RNS document. I jammed my finger yesterday in basketball, so typing is painful. Therefore, I'm limiting my comments to the most significant. Thank you to the RNS team for all of their work. Andrew High level comments: 1) The basic directory function is to provide a mapping handle f("string"), i.e., to map strings to some form of handle. Thus, in section 1.1. Why do we need four different types of junctions? Should we not have one type of junction: mainly to an EPR. Thus a directory would map a string to an EPR. EPR f("string"); Instead there are four "types" of junctions: EPR's Virtualized reference - either contains an EPR or a URL that points to some other service Referrals - point to another RNS service. Q: could this not be modeled as an EPR? Alias - points to another "entry" within the "same" RNS service. This seems to imply a container like model - more on this later. I suggest that we need only ONE type of junction - an EPR. That will simplify client coding - and the model significantly. 2) Implied model - Repositories There is a notion in the spec of "same service instance" that in conversations has also been called a "repository". The basic idea is that an RNS service may "contain" a set of directories - and that the service has a root. Thus junction types distinguish, for example, between internal and external things that they point to. Thus an RNS service is a rooted tree - that may point at the leaves to other rooted trees. So, first of all - it is implied. If we're going to have that model it should be right up front and discussed. What is a repository? What are it's special port types if any, etc. Second, I think that it is not the right way to think about the problem. Directories should be the resources - not collections of directories. If a particular implementation chooses to multiplex a large number of logically independent directories in a single container - great - we will certainly do that too. The issue is what is the model. I feel fairly strongly about this. Links "into" other RNS servers:1.1.2.4 "Alias Junction" is restricted to pointing to entries in the same repository. I think they should be able to point to anything - including directories in "other" repositories. It has been claimed that using the EPR of the "repository" and a path you can get that effect. However, what if the path changes in the other container? My link would break - even if the directory itself still exists. 3) Full path names In ANY directory system lookup really takes two parameters - a "root" at which to start, and a path. Often the "root" is implied, or is at some well-known location. RNS - as written, implies that all lookups are based on full paths with an implied, unspecified root. Assuming that full paths are to be used on all lookups, the potential for both hot spots AND single point of failure are clear. In conversation with Manual he mentioned that his clients cache intermediate parts of the tree in the sense that "/foo/bar/d1" as a prefix leads to a particular RNS service, and then use that info to not always traverse the tree. Besides the obvious implementation challenges of cache consistency when the tree is changing (a problem we certainly had/have in Legion) there is the modeling issue. If we expect clients to do that - then perhaps the architecture/specification should accommodate that and say that all lookups are relative path lookups with respect to some "root". The root could be a true "root", or interior node in a tree, which is itself a "root" of the subtree it defines. 4) Resolve and file system profile. We discussed these on the last ogsa call, my understanding is that they are going out. 5) Iterators. OGSA-Data-WG has discussed iterators in a more general way, e.g., on data base query results etc., I think that whatever is done in RNS should be consistent with whatever is done in OGSA-Data (note - consistency can happen either way). Medium level comments: S 1.1 "In all cases, junctions are capable of maintaining a list of references (EPRs/URLs) per entry, that is a single junction my render several available EPRs, each of which represent replicas, copies of the same resource, or operationally identical services. " Why? Are you saying that replication issues and semantics should be dealt with in the directory structure? Or are you saying that directories are not "sets" in the sense of only one entry - but rather "multi-sets" in the sense that one string can map to multiple things. If the later - what are the implied semantics. I think it may be safer to keep them as sets.

3 3

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1578] R0611 should be updated based on PR Base Notification
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1578 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-25 16:54:55 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1578&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1578&group_id…) Summary: R0611 should be updated based on PR Base Notification Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1578 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-25 16:54:55 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-25 16:54:55 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: see summary View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 20 July 2005
by Andreas Savva 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

Minutes attached. - F2F update - Next step discussion - WSRF BP 1.0 review https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050720/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 20 July 2005 ================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Apologies: Tom Maguire Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes July 18 minutes approved with minor modifications: date is wrong, and should be corrected to July 18. * F2F Update - The Resource Management (RM) design team wants a slot during the F2F; preferably a full day. - They had a call, starting their discussion from the same point as the last OGSA call: the need for a document to make requirements concrete. The F2F seems to be the best time to start working out the contents of this document. - Andrea Westerinen will also be joining the OGSA F2F for this purpose. (She cannot make it before Wednesday, however) - Andrew is also needed for this effort. But he is leaving Thursday afternoon. - Schedule proposal is to use the OGSA session Wednesday afternoon and continue in the OGSA session Thursday morning. - Will look at BES, and EMS resource model (RSS will need something too). - EGA joint-session is also being planned for Wednesday afternoon. - Andrew is therefore double-booked. - Agreed to move the EGA session to Tuesday morning, either in parallel to or after ByteIO if it finishes early. - The EGA members may want to get involved on a specific issue. The RM work seems like a good candidate. In this meeting however it may be better to discuss procedural issues. - And start discussing what that common topic is. Suggest RM as a candidate. (And possibly ask them to join the RM work at a later point when it has more structure.) - Is the OGSA general session on Friday sufficient? Not sure. - Are ByteIO and Naming taking too much time on the schedule? (half-a-day each) - ByteIO: a couple of hours are probably enough (including spec review). No controversy so far. - Naming: there seems to be (tentative) consensus on the main issues. So a couple of hours might be enough. This excludes a discussion of RNS. If RNS is discussed then half-a-day in total may be needed. Action: Andrew to send an email to the EGA members and arrange the meeting for Tuesday morning. Action: Andreas to book an extra room for Tuesday morning - Marvin Theimer cannot join in person. Add to the list of people dialling in. * Next Step discussion Based on Hiro's draft sent out before the call: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/07/msg00064.html - OGSA-WG is already committed to the following activities: - OGSA 1.5 and Glossary 1.5 - OGSA Roadmap 1.0 - OGSA Profile definition (submitted; waiting to enter public comment) - WSRF BP 1.0 (working to complete; schedule has already slipped. Probably cannot publish before November.) - EMS area: - BES has already started and RSS is starting up. - CDDLM and ACS work has to be integrated (see next topic) - Provisioning - Priority is high; will be worked on at the next F2F in the joint session with CDDLM. - Basic EM Profile: revisit after GGF15 - Job Manager Interface: - Perceived overlap with BES as well as work from other groups. - Not high priority; revisit later. - EMS architecture document - As a separate document it may take longer than August. [Need to identify what changes in OGSA 1.5 though.] - Grid Resource model - This is now high priority; agreement is to start working on this soon. - Resource virtualization: This seems more of a by-product of OGSA work. Probably do not need it as a separate topic. - Information services: Abdeslem has indicated he needs help with this topic. Need to follow up with Abdeslem. (Not sure if he can attend the F2F. Hiro to confirm.) - OGSA Authz - They have submitted one document recently; it is probably going to public comment soon. - There is also another draft on using SAML and OGSI. It needs to be revised for WSRF. - They are trying to re-charter. - OGSA-WG would like to be more involved with this group. The target is to have the same level of interaction that OGSA-WG has with BES, RSS, etc. (Especially since this seems to be the only active security group and it carries the OGSA prefix.) - Therefore synchronizing with this group is high priority. The F2F may offer a good opportunity to do so. Maybe invite members of OGSA AuthZ to attend and have a discussion. - Some people are based in the Bay area. - Negotiate a place on the agenda based on their availability. Action: Takuya has contact with this group (OGSA liaison) and will invite them to attend. - Agreed to add Basic Profile 2.0 to the list. - BP 1.0 interop - this is going to be a lot of work. and noone has taken this activity on yet. Volunteers needed. - If it will happen in public at GGF16 it should be done before in a smaller circle. So as to make sure it will not fail. Action: Andrew will ask Marty if he would like to lead this activity on. - Roadmap document update - OGSA-WG has committed to updating this document. So it should be moved to the first section. - It is low priority. - Use case cross-check: low priority. No volunteers. - December F2F: consider La Jolla as a location. - Hiro's schedule proposal: - Andrew has sent out comments on RNS specification. Some time for the RNS review should be allocated in July/August - Roadmap public comment period is until July 29. - There are very few comments. Are those enough? - It is an informational document and so the bar is lower than Recommendation track. - Is there a way to check how many people have downloaded it? - All should try to invite more comments from colleagues. [An updated version of the work items list, based on this review, was sent to the list: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/07/msg00068.html] * WSRF BP 1.0 review There has not been a separate security call or discussion yet. Also Takuya is still reviewing the WS-I Basic Security Profile (WS-I BSP) on the header signing issue. Other related issues are also still unresolved. Review based on draft 29: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… Did a page by page review until page 14 (l.493). Accepted all changes to that point with the following exceptions: - R0429: Takuya has comments on the Schema Centric Canonicalization specification. A summary follows: - The Schema Centric Canonicalication specification only covers serialization of nodesets. So there is still a need to define the schema for the content of reply messages when the return values that are strings, numbers, booleans. (XPath allows such return values.) - Even if selecting a fragment the whole document would be serialized; this might cause big performance problems with large documents, even if the returned fragment is small. Action: Takuya to send an email with his concerns on the Schema Centric Canonicalization to the list. - E0802: Is this extensibility point listed in WS-I BSP 1.0? - Takuya think it is. Action: Hiro to re-check the WS-I BSP 1.0 - A newer version of the WS-I BSP seems to be in the works. But there is no time to change from using the currently used version. Might be able to do so during public comment. - l.493: 'only' issue is still unresolved. Action: Takuya to propose new text to the list. * Other business - Andrew will miss the next call (Monday) due to other commitments.

3 3

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1577] R0617 and R0618 are obseleted in the PR version of BaseNotification
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1577 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-25 16:51:10 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1577&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1577&group_id…) Summary: R0617 and R0618 are obseleted in the PR version of BaseNotification Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1577 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-25 16:51:10 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-25 16:51:10 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: see summary View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 v030 uploaded
by Tom Maguire 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

Version 030 of BP has been uploaded. Comments have been removed and turned into trackers. BaseNotification section has been updated based on the PR of BaseNotification. I will be on the call at 7:00PM EDT; please move the BP discussion until then. I would like to close fixed trackers on BP durint that section of the call. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… Tom Frey’s Law: “Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves” 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

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1576] Appendix E Namespace URIs defined as hyperlinks
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1576 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-25 16:42:41 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1576&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1576&group_id…) Summary: Appendix E Namespace URIs defined as hyperlinks Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1576 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-25 16:42:41 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-25 16:42:41 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: Should not be URLs. Should be plain old URI View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1575] URI reference in Normative References. Is it necessary
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1575 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-25 16:38:11 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1575&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1575&group_id…) Summary: URI reference in Normative References. Is it necessary Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1575 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-25 16:38:11 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-25 16:38:11 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: see summary View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1574] Section 8.2.1 Do we need addtional INSTANCE and MESSAGE constraints
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1574 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-25 16:35:33 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1574&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1574&group_id…) Summary: Section 8.2.1 Do we need addtional INSTANCE and MESSAGE constraints Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1574 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-25 16:35:33 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-25 16:35:33 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: see summary View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1573] section 8.2.1 description needs some work
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1573 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-25 16:33:04 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1573&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1573&group_id…) Summary: section 8.2.1 description needs some work Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1573 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-25 16:33:04 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-25 16:33:04 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: Second sentence of description is weak. View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1572] Section 8.1.3 should must be MUST
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1572 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-25 16:24:18 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1572&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1572&group_id…) Summary: Section 8.1.3 should must be MUST Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1572 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-25 16:24:18 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-25 16:24:18 Assigned To: Tom Maguire File(s): <None> Description: Descriptive text is lowercase must. Should it be MUST? View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Basic Profile - 1571] TLS Extenstions not in BP1.1
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

A new artifact has been added: 1571 Submitted by: Tom Maguire Submitted date: 2005-07-25 16:21:50 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1571&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=780&aid=1571&group_id…) Summary: TLS Extenstions not in BP1.1 Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Basic Profile Artifact ID: 1571 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Tom Maguire Last Modified: 2005-07-25 16:21:50 Submitted By: Tom Maguire Submit Date: 2005-07-25 16:21:50 Assigned To: Hiro Kishimoto File(s): <None> Description: Should we have the TLS Extensions as extension points in section 8 E0802? BP 1.1 does not have them View the Basic Profile : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

Proposed agenda for July 25th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 25 Jul '05

25 Jul '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on July 25th 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: 0725 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-20050720/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) Aug F2F meeting update (20 min) The early draft of the meeting agenda is; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/OGSA-2005-Aug-F2F-age… 3) Telecon schedule review (20 min) > A revised next step work item document based on July 20th call. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ogsa-wg-work-item-lis… > A tele-con schedule proposal based on our agreement. > We will review this proposal at upcoming Monday call. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/en/26 4) OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 review (60 min) Security section review The latest draft is version 29 https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-wsrf-b… 5) Wrap up (10 min) AOB July 27 (Wed) OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 final call, OGSA Arch 1.5 Aug. 1 (Mon) OGSA roadmap public comments review Aug. 3 (Wed) Resource Modeling discussion https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ ---- Hiro Kishimoto

1 0