- ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

#1742 WS-Name vs. Abstract Name
by Frank Siebenlist 28 Apr '06

28 Apr '06

Summary: #1742 WS-Name vs. Abstract Name Tracker: Naming Comments by Frank Description: remove and do not use the "WS-Name" definition as it has no more special meaning when the Address can also be viewed as an "abstract-name" Andrew Grimshaw (2006-03-16 10:54:35) I disagree. The term "WS-Name" implies an EPR with an AbstractName. Whereas a RenewableReference implies an EPR with a Resolver EPR. Frank: Please read my comment again as this has nothing to do with renewable references... A "name" is not a "EPR"... it's use as one only confuses. Furthermore, there is nothing "abstract" about the "abstract-name"... also causes confusion -- Frank Siebenlist franks(a)mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory

1 0

[Fwd: [ogsa-naming-wg] Call in number for tomorrow morning]
by Frank Siebenlist 28 Apr '06

28 Apr '06

FYI - Frank. -- Frank Siebenlist franks(a)mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory

1 0

Naming requirements document
by Andrew Grimshaw 28 Apr '06

28 Apr '06

All, Recall that back at the January face-to-face Frank and Dave took an action to write up their take on the requirements for (low-level) naming. Attached is their draft. A few comments of mine based on my read and discussions of the document with Dave. 1) This is not intended as a replacement for the existing work. 2) It is requirements - not specifications. Rather, it is a call for specifications that address the requirements. 3) Several of the requirements are met by the existing WS-Naming draft specification, though some are not. 4) Two of the proposed "specifications", 5.2 and 5.4 are covered by the existing WS-Name specification. A variant of 5.3 is covered in the WS-Name spec. The variant specified a technique that could be used to ensure that identifying information would be sent with the headers - specifically embed names in the reference parameters. Personally I fell that 5.3 is a fine replacement for that if desired. 5.1 is not covered at all, and I must confess that it seems so obvious that I had implicitly assumed it true. Dave says it is not - so having a spec that says it must be true seems ok to me. 5) I think that with a small amount of work on this document and the WS-Name spec we can make them dovetail quite nicely. GGF is a scant two weeks away. I'd like to schedule a teleconference with the following agenda on Friday April 28th, at 10 AM eastern. (Dial in information as soon as I find a dial in number we can use.) If you plan on attending, PLEASE read both the existing draft WS-Name spec and this document before the call. Proposed Agenda: Max time Subject 5 minutes Agenda bashing 30 minutes Discuss draft requirements document including vis a vis existing draft WS-Name document 30 minutes Discuss approval of DRAFT WS-Names document to send to GFSG for GFSG approval. Note we will prepare a version that does not include the language that overlaps 5.3. 25 minutes Attempt to come to closure on working group consensus regarding WS-Directory, RNS, or failing that, at least what the issues are. Andrew Grimshaw Professor of Computer Science University of Virginia 434-982-2204 grimshaw(a)cs.virginia.edu

3 2

no authz SoW yet...
by Frank Siebenlist 27 Apr '06

27 Apr '06

Sorry, it requires a little more homework on my part... -Frank. -- Frank Siebenlist franks(a)mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory

1 0

URLs for 4/27 OGSA call (info model item)
by Ellen Stokes 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

A document has been added: "BES and JSDL": https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewProperties.php?group_id=42&category… Note: the one thing I left off the next steps slide above is a work item to provide a concrete simple diagram and xml example to demonstrate the approach "updated JSDL 1.0 to CIM spreadsheet": https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewProperties.php?group_id=42&category… Ellen

1 0

Proposed agenda for April 27th call
by Hiro Kishimoto 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on April 27th Thursday from 8:30am - 10:30am (CDT). Dial-in numbers for Thursday: Free: +1-888-452-0308 Intl/Toll: +1-484-644-0505 PIN: 71815 Screen share service will be provided. URL: http://ogsa.glance.net Session key: 0427 See more explanation: http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html 1) Early discussion (20 min) Note taker assignment Roll call OGSA webcast report (Jem) Telecon minutes approval (if available) Action Items status review (see the bottom of this email) Agenda bashing 2) Frank's statement of security work review (Jay, if available) Frank will send out his statement of security work proposal. It is expected to be the base of new specification. 3) Information model discussion (Ellen and Fred, 30 min) > - Ellen will do a revised visio diagram that has only the > relevant BES attributes and JSDL attributes (base it off > the info_model_for_BES/BES Container class) 4) GGF17 OGSA session preparation (Hiro, 20 min) OGSA-WG will have two sessions: (1) OGSA Information Model (G405) Thursday, May 11, 1:45 pm - 3:15 pm (2) OGSA EMS architecture (G405) Thursday, May 11, 3:45 pm - 5:15 pm Hiro will give opening keynote on OGSA Wednesday, May 10, 9:30 am - 10:30 am 5) OGSA interim F2F meetings after GGF17 date/location (Hiro, 20 min) Hiro will send out list of options before the call. 6) Wrap up (10 min) AOB <*NEXT CALL*> May 1, 4, 8 NO call GGF17 May 10-12 in Tokyo <*ACTION ITEMS*> From April 20 call - Marvin will re-format and update the use case document - Marvin will initiate mail discussions on the extension topics - Marvin to send the draft charter to the OGSA list for comments. (Final review will be at the BOF in Tokyo.) - Dave B will send out the scenarios (written by the data team) to HPC team - Marvin and Dave B to send out and continue the Data scenario discussion on the list From April 6 F2F meeting - Hiro and Jun will look at what needs to be provided as a set of common component models and make a proposal to the group. - Steven will update the scenarios with the comments from this review and merge into the draft Scenarios document From April 5 F2F meeting - Marvin to send e-mail that explains concerns on compliance suite by GGF & EGA. - Manuel & Andrew to determine where/when to hold standard hierarchical namespaces discussions. From April 4 F2F meeting - Steven Newhouse to ask Jennifer Schopf on the status of the GIN modeling document. - Ellen will do a revised visio diagram that has only the relevant BES attributes and JSDL attributes (base it off the info_model_for_BES/BES Container class) Other - Andreas: to finalize OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 doc and make a final call Deferred - Jay check and find out relatively small funding to Globus to develop document on their security work (April 6 F2F) - Hiro to schedule a discussion in the OGSA F2F after the converged specs drafts are released to discuss which sets of specs to use within OGSA. (April 4 F2F) --- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

FW: [wg-all] An invitation to the OGSA webcast on April 26th
by Treadwell, Jem 26 Apr '06

26 Apr '06

Hi, Just a reminder that this webcast is today (Wednesday) - as of Tuesday morning there were still a few places available, so please pass this on to anyone you know who may be interested. Also please note that the virtual classroom software was upgraded over the weekend, so if you've registered please visit the "testsetup" link or log in for the session a few minutes early as you will need to download new client software. Thanks! - Jem -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-all(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-wg-all@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crumb Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:47 PM To: GRID-announce(a)ggf.org; wg-all(a)ggf.org Subject: [wg-all] An invitation to the OGSA webcast on April 26th The GGF's OGSA Working Group invites you to join our webcast session, "Defining the Grid: An Introduction to the Open Grid Services Architecture," on Wednesday April 26th at 2pm EDT. In this webcast we will discuss the evolution of grid computing, explain how service-oriented grids fit with other leading-edge enterprise technologies, and describe OGSA and its core capabilities. The presentation will be given by Professor Andrew Grimshaw of the University of Virginia, a leading member of GGF and the OGSA Working Group. After the presentation Andrew and other members of the Working Group will be pleased to answer your questions. This webcast will be of interest to technology managers, architects and developers who would like to learn about standards-based grid technology and its place throughout the enterprise. For more details, and to register, please visit http://www.presentationselect.com/hpinvent/detailsl.asp#1188. Registration is open to all, and there is no charge. Places are limited, however, so be sure to register early. And don't worry if you can't make it to the live webcast: a recording of the session will be available a few days after the event. Please watch http://www.ggf.org for details. Steve Crumb Executive Director, GGF scrumb(a)ggf.org +1 630-252-8610 +1 630-915-3324 (cell)

1 0

Job State proposal made to SAGA-RG
by Christopher Smith 25 Apr '06

25 Apr '06

Hi all, Per Marvin's comments ... Here is a pointer to the proposal for modelling job states that I made to the SAGA group last February. http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/saga-rg/2006/02/msg00107.html -- Chris

5 11

FW: Comments to the HPC Use Cases: Base Case and Common Cases
by Balle, Susanne 25 Apr '06

25 Apr '06

-----Original Message----- From: Marvin Theimer [mailto:theimer@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 9:06 PM To: Balle, Susanne Cc: Treadwell, Jem; Marvin Theimer Subject: RE: Comments to the HPC Use Cases: Base Case and Common Cases Hi; Thanks for your input! My comments on your comments are in-line. How do you feel about my posting this email to the ogsa-wg mailing list so that others can see the issues you've raised plus my responses? No problem if you'd rather not, but I think it would be interesting to the larger community if you do feel comfortable with it. Let me know -- I will keep this email thread private until you tell me otherwise. Marvin. -----Original Message----- From: Balle, Susanne [mailto:Susanne.Balle@hp.com] Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:44 PM To: Marvin Theimer Cc: Balle, Susanne; Treadwell, Jem Subject: Comments to the HPC Use Cases: Base Case and Common Cases Marvin, I read the document "HPC Use Cases: Base Case and Common Cases" and thought it was a good start. I do have a couple of comments about the documents which I have enclosed below: 1. I would re-title the document to "HPC Job Scheduling Use Cases -- Base Case and Common Case". The main reason is that too many topics which are important to HPC are "out-of-band" areas with regards to the focus of this document. The document does only focus on job scheduling so why not just cal it that? [MT] Good point. I'll try it and see how others react. 2. Under Base Case In this section I would like to add a point about "users being able to query for available resources". I do that all the time before I launch a job. It is nice to know what resources are currently available or currently up so that I don't submit a job for 512 nodes and only 510 of the 512 nodes are up. [MT] This seems reasonable. A key thing will be to define what the "minimal" set of useful information is. Additional "commonly desired" information should then be defined as common case extensions. 3. Page 3 (top). Reading this Section made me decide that renaming the document made more sense. This is NOT "HPC Use Cases" but "HPC Job Scheduling Base Cases". This will allow others to follow your lead and create "HPC Other topic (.ie. Data management, etc.) Use Cases". [MT] Agreed. 4. Page 3 (bottom). One important aspect that you have left out here is that the individual clusters should remain under the control of their local system administrator and/or of their local policies. You cannot impose a FIFO policy onto clusters with a different scheduling policy. [MT] You raise a good point. My goal in specifying FIFO was to say that the "simplest" scheduling policy would be the only thing "required" of all schedulers. But I think the true base case is that a scheduler is free to pick whatever scheduling policy (or policies) that it wishes. I.e. that specification of required scheduling policies is out-of-scope for the base case. 5. Page 3 (bottom) I am not quick sure what you mean by "the only scheduling policy supported is FIFO". Where do you mean? Aren't you planning on passing the jobs onto the local scheduler which will then apply whatever policy it is set to obey? Do you mean that in the scheduler infrastructure you want to create you will only support FIFO which in fact will just consist in passing it on to the local scheduler? I am a little confused after reading this section. [MT] My comment to point 4 is applicable here. My goal was to define the "smallest" or "simplest" set of interop requirements possible for the base case. Extensions could then define scheduling policies that a scheduler promises to provide. Does "only supporting FIFO" mean that you will only submit one job at the time to a cluster? [MT] No, if more than one job will fit on the cluster then there is no reason not to run two or more jobs simultaneously. But I'm changing the base case to not require any particular scheduling policy in any case. 6. " A job consists of a single program running on a single node". I believe this is too restrictive. MPI programs need to be considered to make sure that we have the right level of confidence that the design/infrastructure will work for parallel programs as well. How about OpenMP or threaded programs? Have you taken this type of programs into consideration? I do not see them mentioned anywhere. [MT] These fall under the "common cases that will be handled via extensions" category. Note that support for MPI programs typically involves infrastructure (such as SMPD daemons) that not all scheduling systems necessarily support; hence MPI programs are not explicitly supported in the base case. The whole purpose of defining the various common cases in the next section of the document is to ensure that we address how to handle things like MPI programs correctly by means of thought-out extensions. The same applies for threaded/OpenMP programs. 7. After having read Section 2 I believe that the common case is too restrictive. I understand that you want things to be simple but maybe they have become too simple. I am worried that you cannot extend this simple base case to fit most common requirements for HPC applications. [MT] Figuring out how to extend the base case to cover all the listed common cases is the task of the working group. :-) Personally I believe that we can define suitable extensions that will enable the simple base case I've defined to be extended to the common cases. If that's not the case then we'll certainly change the base case as necessary. But I want to start with the simplest possible base case since it's a constant battle to keep peoples' pet features out of the base design and it's a slippery slope to hell once you step away from the absolutely most minimal base case that lets the whole edifice (base case plus extensions) hang together. 8. Section 3.1 You forgot SLURM in the list and also Moab which is the commercial product from Cluster Resources who support Maui. Moab's Grid scheduler is very interested and offers a lot of very desirable features for a Grid environment. More info on SLURm is available at: http://www.llnl.gov/linux/slurm/slurm.html I am working on SLURM and would be happy to provide you with what you need for your document or to answer any questions you have about SLURM. [MT] Great! I really appreciate it. I have some more comments on the remaining sections. I will send them in a separate email tomorrow. Regards Susanne ----------------------------------------- Susanne M. Balle Hewlett-Packard High Performance Computing R&D Organization MS ZKO01-3 110 Spit Brook Road Nashua, NH 03062 Phone: 603-884-7732 Fax: 603-884-0630 Susanne.Balle(a)hp.com

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 24 April 2006
by Andreas Savva 25 Apr '06

25 Apr '06

Attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20060424/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 24 April 2006 =================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Chris Jordan (SDSC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Frank Siebenlist (ANL) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Minutes: Andreas Savva * April 20 minutes approved with no changes * Action review [Only items with updates are listed below] - Jay will ask Frank to summarize in a 1-2 pages what work exists and can be the base of new specifications. (This summary will be then reviewed by the group and decide whether that is the way to go.) Done (today's agenda) - Marvin to send e-mail that explains concerns on compliance suite by GGF & EGA. Hiro sent follow up email to Marvin. - Ellen will do a revised visio diagram that has only the relevant BES attributes and JSDL attributes (base it off the info_model_for_BES/BES Container class) Confirmed that there will be an update in time for this Thursday's call. - Andreas: to finalize OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 doc and make a final call In progress. * Security Frank said there will be an AuthZ WG call tomorrow to discuss re-chartering and David Chadwick's documents. Discussed what kind of security work has already been done (implemented) and could become the basis of a new specification. Frank talked about a proposal for an authorization call-out WS interface that could end up as a GGF published specification: - This is a call-out from a security infrastructure (e.g., from a container in the case of Apache). In GT there is an internal API around the notion of a PDP and some PDPs are configured to call out. These call-outs use a WS interface and SAML 1.1 at the moment. - The work plan would possible extent this authorization call out i/f and define a new WS protocol. ACTION: Frank to write up and send to the list a one page summary of the authorization call-out proposal before Thursday's call. The group will discuss the proposal on the list and either on the Thursday call or at a later teleconference. (Frank cannot make the Thursday call but if Jay is present he will explain it instead.) * GGF17 session review Two sessions are planned: Information and EMS - There is no detailed agenda yet for either yet. - In the Information session the likely plan is to present the latest work as agreed at the last F2F (abstract view for job requirements matching) and connection of that work to JSDL and RSS. - Jay has sent a request to the JSDL-WG and RSS-WG chairs to get some time in those WGs sessions but has not received confirmations yet. ACTION: After confirming the agenda of this session, Hiro/Jay to send an invitation to those groups to also attend the Information Modeling session. - (And, possibly, to suggest continuing this discussion in those WG's sessions.) - For the EMS session a likely agenda is - Scenarios review (If Steven has a conflict Andreas may fill in.) - CDDLM and JSDL relationship - WS-Agreement discussion - Jay suggested discussing how to use WS-Agreement (e.g., role and relation between WS-Agreement and JSDL) and to also invite people from GRAAP-WG. He said that an opinion he has heard often is that the framework described by WS-Agreement is interesting but it is not clear how to use it. - Hiro and Andreas mentioned that Business Grid and NAREGI use WS-Agreement in certain places. They'll look into getting some material for this discussion. - Andreas has seen a list of projects that use WS-Agreement and he will send it to Jay. - Another candidate topic for the EMS session is an ESI discussion. But the BES-WG has already started discussing the ESI paper and they seem to be making good progress. There was also a suggestion to do an ad hoc BoF. So it was agreed to encourage the idea of an ad hoc BoF instead of using time in the EMS session. - OGSA dinner: It's likely that there are other events planned for Wednesday and Thursday night (reception, chair appreciation). And some people may be leaving Friday. Hiro will confirm the schedule. * Webcast update - Jem talked about the final preparations. The slides are ready but some minor revisions may still be made. - The webcast recording should be made available online a few days after the event, and definitely by GGF17.

1 0