- ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

Teleconference minutes - 27 February 2006
by Andreas Savva 28 Feb '06

28 Feb '06

Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20060227/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 27 February 2006 ====================================== * Participants Jay Unger (IBM) Jem Treadwell (HP) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Takuya Mori (NEC) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Summary of Actions Action: Hiro to do a survey for the F2F location and dates. - Simple format: date and location pairs and a yes/no choice - 3 locations: East coast, West coast, UK (London) - 2 dates: April 4-7 or April 10-11 (avoid Good Friday) * Feb 22 Minutes - approved with no changes * April F2F agenda Hiro sent out a proposed agenda for the April F2F. - (Note that the days of the week in the proposal are tentative.) Confirmed again that Information model and EMS (including CDDLM discussions) are the main topics. - CDDLM joint discussion is on the list. Dejan may not be able to participate if the meeting is in the UK but there are other CDDLM people based in the UK. OGSA-HPC: Marvin has said that he cannot make the week of April 3rd in person. Hiro is contacting Marvin to check if he can lead by phone, or whether someone else (Marty) can lead in person. Information services: no person leading this work within OGSA-WG at the moment. (It is also identified as a 'hole' in the MS paper.) Security: Frank has a clash for both the weeks of April 3rd and April 10th. Takuya can lead the session and is talking with Frank on work items. The location and dates are still unconfirmed. Agreed to a survey and to check the results at the next Monday call. Action: Hiro to do a survey for the F2F location and dates. - Simple format: date and location pairs and a yes/no choice - 3 locations: East coast, West coast, UK (London) - 2 dates: April 4-7 or April 10-11 (avoid Good Friday) * Document status ** WSRF BP 1.0 document update: - Tom is not present; postponed for Wed. ** OGSA 1.5: - Received update from Dave Berry - Waiting for Andreas' final edits - Aim for final version by Wednesday's call. ** Other - Jem has updated the Wikipedia entry for 'OGSA' - The OGSA-WG front page and the GGF information pages also need updating since some of the text is very old. * Teleconf plan review - Keep March 8 to review Information Modeling guidelines document (Fred) - Move other Information modeling documents to March 27 - Delete security from March 8 - The week before GGF is Golden week (Japan holiday) so neither Hiro nor Andreas not available. The schedule is now open. It it is necessary to have calls, Tom may chair these. - Hiro will upload the revised schedule to the list.

1 0

New OGSA-HPC design team - Call for Participation
by Hiro Kishimoto 24 Feb '06

24 Feb '06

Hi all, At the GGF16 OGSA-WG F2F meeting on Friday, we have discussed and agreed to form new OGSA-HPC design team. This design team will focus on the following; 1. Refine and analyze the HPC job submission use case (input from the existing one and other sources, including whether it covers the necessary functionality); and 2. Review existing specs; and 3a. If new specs are needed then launch activities to define the needed specifications; otherwise 3b. Try doing such a vertical profile possibly in a different WG. OGSA-HPC design team is open for everyone and will use OGSA-WG mailing list the same as the other design teams. If you are interested in this design team, please contact Marvin <theimer(a)microsoft.com> or me. From the F2F minutes. > ACTION: Marvin to start and lead a design team within OGSA-WG to > work on the HPC use case immediately. > - It should be advertised to the OGSA list > - There is an existing use case within OGSA-WG and it should be used > as input. (Ravi's use case from the OGSA UC Tier 2 document, > already sent out to the list.) Other input will also be solicited. > - Allocate time on the ogsa call periodically for a status review > - Potentially do a BOF at GGF17, if the scope is clearly defined by > then > - The design team to be named OGSA-HPC Presentation at F2F meeting (MUST READ); https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF16-F2F-Evolutionar… Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts": https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/An_Evolutionary_Appro… Meeting minutes; https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ggf16-f2f-minutes-200… Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

3 3

Teleconference minutes - 22 February 2006
by Andreas Savva 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

Attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20060222/en/1 ** MONDAY TELECONFERENCE DIAL-IN WILL CHANGE FROM NEXT WEEK ** -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - 22 February 2006 ====================================== * Participants Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwell (HP) Takuya Mori (NEC) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Summary of Actions Action: Hiro to announce the new OGSA-HPC design team to the list. Action: Hiro to confirm intentions of the other design teams for F2F time and re-confirm dates. * Minutes of February 8 - approved with no changes * Minutes of GGF16 OGSA session 1 (Round table) - approved with no changes * Minutes of GGF16 OGSA session 2 (Information model) - approved with no changes * Minutes of post-GGF16 F2F - approved with no changes Discussed who should announce the new design team. Agreed that it should be Hiro since he is the co-chair. * F2F Agenda discussion - Confirmed that Information Model design teams wants to meet at the April F2F. - The Security design team has no plans to meet. The week of April 3 also needs re-confirmation since some people have said they may not be able to make it. Action: Hiro to confirm intentions of the other design teams for F2F time and re-confirm dates. * Next calls planning - Information Model design team is working on 3 documents (Fred: 1, Ellen: 2): allocate 2 Wednesday calls - Fred's modelling guidelines tentatively for March 8 - Ellen's documents tentatively for March 22 - Security has no documents in progress. A joint call with OGSA-AuthZ is not being planned at the moment. - No time required until the F2F - Work on the next version of the OGSA Roadmap should start sometime in the near future. But no teleconf time is required until the April F2F. - Monday teleconference dial-in information will change. It will be announced on the next proposed agenda. - Next Monday (Feb 27): No clear agenda items at the moment.

1 0

Agenda for 22 February 2006 (Wednesday) call
by Andreas Savva 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

Following is the agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Feb. 22nd Wednesday from 4pm to 6pm (CST). Dial-in numbers for Wednesday: US 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: 0222 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-20060208/en/1 OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 status (Tom) OGSA 1.5 status (Andreas) Agenda bashing 2) GGF16 & F2F review (30) a) Minutes approval (session 1, 2, and F2F) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF16-Notes-OGSA-Roun… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF16_Info_Model_Sess… https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ggf16-f2f-minutes-200… b) Confirm actions and decisions 3) April F2F planning (30) Decide the main topics for the April F2F agenda. Main candidates are: 1) Information Modeling 2) OGSA EMS Scenarios (Ideally the above should include JSDL-WG, BES-WG, *RSS-WG* and CDDLM-WG participants.) Do the following design teams/topics require time? - Data - Naming (WS-Name, WS-Directory etc) - Security The following teams have said they do not plan to meet at this F2F: - OGSA-HPC design team (Marvin cannot make it) Note that at the GGF16 F2F we said: > Went through a series of straw polls, not reproduced here with the > following results: > - A four day meeting > - April, Tuesday-Friday (4/4-7) are the best dates > - San Francisco preferred over London by a small difference > - And many people expressed a desire to reconsider > > - Agreed that the choice of venue should be reconsidered after > fixing the agenda and based on the availability of the people > required by the agenda > > - Agreed to make a final decision by March 6 to allow sufficient > time to book flights etc. and > Consensus (7 against 3) to NOT having a one-day F2F at GGF17. 4) Next call planning (20) ** MONDAY TELECONFERENCE DIAL-IN NUMBERS WILL CHANGE! ** a) Discuss how much teleconf time each design team needs from now to the April F2F 5) Wrap up AOB <NEXT CALL> Feb.27 (Monday): ** OPEN ** -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

2 1

Post-GGF16 F2F minutes (17 Feb 2006) uploaded
by Andreas Savva 22 Feb '06

22 Feb '06

I have uploaded the minutes for the one day meeting after GGF16. These include but are not limited to the discussion on the HPC Grid profile proposal. Major topics: * CDDLM joint discussion * Proposal for HPC Grid Profile * Information Services * Information model discussion https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ggf16-f2f-minutes-200… (PS. F2F participants have seen and commented on an early draft. Some changes and additions have been made since.) -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Interim Meeting (GGF16) ============================ Location: NTUA, Athens, Greece Date: 17 February 2006 * Participants Dave Berry (NeSC) Keisuke Fukui (Fujitsu) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Steve Loughran (HP) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Steve McGough (IC) Dejan Milojicic (HP) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC) Steven Newhouse (OMII) Darren Pulsipher (Ovoca) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Marvin Theimer (Microsoft) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Minutes: Andreas Savva (text also contributed by Jem Treadwell) * Summary of Actions [For more details and context see the body of the minutes] ACTION: Steven Newhouse to write up a first draft of a few more scenarios on the relationship between JSDL and CDL. - To be included in the current EMS scenarios document. - To be delivered by mid-March - Review on an OGSA call and continue refinement ACTION: Tom and Andreas to discuss the April F2F agenda at the next call ACTION: Hiro to launch a survey (Zoomerang) for location after the agenda is set. ACTION: Marvin to start and lead a design team within OGSA-WG to work on the HPC use case immediately. - It should be advertised to the OGSA list - There is an existing use case within OGSA-WG and it should be used as input. (Ravi's use case from the OGSA UC Tier 2 document, already sent out to the list.) Other input will also be solicited. - Allocate time on the OGSA call periodically for a status review - Potentially do a BOF at GGF17, if the scope is clearly defined by then - The design team to be named OGSA-HPC ACTION: Hiro to send mail to GIN group and cc OGSA-WG. ACTION: Ellen and Fred to do a document draft that includes - JSDL-CIM mapping - resource container attribute mapping - relationship table in CIM - And to be reviewed by various people (Steven N, Darren, etc) - It would also be really useful (perhaps at a later point) to also show the correspondence of GLUE with the above. * CDDLM joint discussion A JSDL BLAST example was posted to the list prior to GGF16. Steve Loughran introduced a CDL example 'corresponding' to the JSDL one. This immediately raised a number of questions on the approach taken: - What should the correspondence or relation between a JSDL and CDL document? One could encapsulate the other; or there could be a reference relation. - What is the added value of using CDL? There is not much point in simply duplicating the functions in the JSDL document. It was agreed that the CDL document should not just reproduce the JSDL document but it should instead provide a more detailed description of what needs to be set up to make it possible to run the job described by the JSDL document. - In part this is drawing the line between the deployment and provisioning. - As a general approach it was also agreed out that we should aim for a relation such that 'moving the line' between deployment/provisioning should not affect the contents of JSDL and CDL documents. (There was also a repeat of the Sunnyvale (Jan 2006) discussion. That is whether configuration actions should be done implicitly by the container vs making them explicit. Re-affirmed the consensus that configurations actions should be made explicit.) How close is CDL to be a declarative vs procedural language? Agreed that it can probably be used either way, but with a preference towards a declarative use for OGSA purposes. Proposal to work out details in a smaller group with people from the various groups (JSDL, BES, CDDLM) before bringing it back for an architecture review. - Accepted in principle, but was put aside in favor of the following action. ACTION: Steven Newhouse to write up a first draft of a few more scenarios on the relationship between JSDL and CDL. - To be included in the current EMS scenarios document. - To be delivered by mid-March - Review on an OGSA call and continue refinement ** Whiteboard list produced during the discussion - Duplication of JSDL in CDL? - Directory/user creation - What is the difference between [job / application / container] configuration] - Where is line between JSDL and CDL and is it policy specific - Job lifecycle including deployment and start/stop * Next Meeting discussion ** Interim Meeting at GGF17 Discussed options for a Monday, Tuesday or Saturday F2F. Or a combination of the above. Since there is an April F2F also planned it was felt that spending more time at this point would not be productive. Consensus (7 against 3) to NOT having a one-day F2F at GGF17. ** April Meeting Went through a series of straw polls, not reproduced here with the following results: - A four day meeting - April, Tuesday-Friday (4/4-7) are the best dates - San Francisco preferred over London by a small difference - And many people expressed a desire to reconsider - Agreed that the choice of venue should be reconsidered after fixing the agenda and based on the availability of the people required by the agenda - Agreed to make a final decision by March 6 to allow sufficient time to book flights etc. ** Teleconferences - No Monday call - Wednesday call to set agenda for April F2F ACTION: Tom and Andreas to discuss the April F2F agenda at the next call ACTION: Hiro to launch a survey (Zoomerang) for location after the agenda is set. * Proposal for HPC Grid Profile Proposal is for "vertical profiles" in addition to current (horizontal) work. Described in a document that was sent out to the list. - Main scenario: Remotely executing a program on a compute resource - Avoid more complex functionality such as provisioning and ... - Use non-controversial specs (defer discussion on WSRF vs WS-I; WSDM vs WS-Man) Proposal discusses 1) design principles of how to build things up 2) the contents of what should be built - This is a concrete use case. The desire is to see how things already fit but there is no urgency (and no immediate proposal) to go off and change the architecture. - What is a non-controversial spec? The basic idea is to built on what is stable. (It was pointed out that the Profile Definition goes into some detail on these definitions and should be used as a measuring rod.) - There has been a lot of horizontal work. This kind of vertical work is a way to validate the horizontal work ('close the design loop'). Probably/hopefully all the specs that are needed are available; otherwise things become much more complicated. - Doing this kind of vertical work might cause some re-design of the initial factoring. And a number of iteration are probably necessary. (In any case the vertical work should be implemented and tried out before iterating further.) - It was also pointed out that the OGSA documents 'big picture' includes this kind of iterative process. - The iteration cycle should be relatively short to keep the work current. - OGSA does not seem to have the expertise in all the various verticals mentioned to define this kind of vertical profiles. - Someone has to do it. And it is not clear if the work should be done inside OGSA or not. - How do these vertical profiles relate to the horizontal ones. For example, how do they evolve together? - The process discussion is an important one but the group should not get too bogged down by that. People are building stuff and will make decisions regardless since they have to ship products. - There is a use case for HPC job submission in the OGSA Use Case Tier 2 document. This was submitted by Ravi S. Discussed whether this should be the basis for moving forward on this topic. - Agreed on a process proposal for moving forward: 1. Refine and analyze the HPC job submission use case (input from the existing one and other sources, including whether it covers the necessary functionality); and 2. Review existing specs; and 3a. If new specs are needed then launch activities to define the needed specifications; otherwise 3b. Try doing such a vertical profile possibly in a different WG. It was re-stated that a profile has to use existing specs (mini specs can be defined on the fly). And that there is a design effort to check whether the necessary functionality is available. This design effort could start as a design team to explore what needs to be done; with the option of starting a new WG once there is a clearer understanding of what pieces exist. The alternative is to divorce completely from OGSA-WG and do this activity separately. But in the latter case there would probably be more discussion within the GFSG on whether such a clearly overlapping effort should be allowed. ACTION: Marvin to start and lead a design team within OGSA-WG to work on the HPC use case immediately. - It should be advertised to the OGSA list - There is an existing use case within OGSA-WG and it should be used as input. (Ravi's use case from the OGSA UC Tier 2 document, already sent out to the list.) Other input will also be solicited. - Allocate time on the ogsa call periodically for a status review - Potentially do a BOF at GGF17, if the scope is clearly defined by then - The design team to be named OGSA-HPC On a side note the WS-Management profile for OGSA was also discussed: - Can there be a WS-Man profile for OGSA at the same level as the WSRF BP and thereby a way to make sure that the multiple basic profiles approach actually works? And could there be Microsoft participation to this? (This work wouldn't go the distance to management (WSDM level) which is more controversial.) - If scoped to a narrow enough domain it might be worth trying; it is difficult to see what it means for doing it for the whole of OGSA. - This is a different issue from the vertical profile proposal but nevertheless an important one. - WS-Man profile: Dave S, Jay and Tom M have an open offer to assist a design team defining this - Missing some experts for individual specs * Information Services Currently no activity in info services. - Steven: There's an activity going on in GIN (Grid Interoperability Now) to identify endpoints - GIN/OMII will develop its own information service - GLUE/CIM-based - Hiro: Any chance we can get them to join our calls? - Steve: Unlikely; we would need to join theirs. - Ravi: Collect info from other documents, such as MDS. - Steven: OMII is going to be very focused on their work for the next six months, and won't have time to write documents to feed back to OGSA. - Dave S: There's an enormous amount we can learn from them - might want to ask for a summary document, one chapter per area. We need to keep Charlie Catlett & Dane Skow informed; ACTION: Hiro to send mail to GIN group and cc OGSA-WG. * RSM license update - Process kinks worked out. - Use the online form to apply. Allow for 3-5 business days for completion. * Information model discussion - A list of use cases as requested at the last GGF session is needed. - Given a data model (right or wrong) can it be mapped to the information model? - Some people agreed (and none disagreed) with the statement that "the JSDL implied model has a mapping to the information model" - A JSDL to information model (CIM) mapping and the relationships in CIM provide a way to 'select' a resource model for bes container. So that a JSDL description can be matched with a container description. ACTION: Ellen and Fred to do a document draft that includes - JSDL-CIM mapping - resource container attribute mapping - relationship table in CIM - And to be reviewed by various people (Steven N, Darren, etc.) - It would also be really useful (perhaps at a later point) to also show the correspondence of GLUE with the above. - There is going to be a GIN information model discussion at GGF17 and Fred & Ellen should plan to attend. * OGSA 1.5 & Glossary update - Documents are close to final call. The Glossary is done, the architecture document needs some minor changes; some to address issues raised during GGF16. - A final call probably sometime next week. - Andreas will put both glossary and architecture into final call - Proposal to make the glossary into a wiki to make it easier for more people to contribute. And freeze occasionally for publication. * OGSA Communication - Agreed to a presentation per capability in addition to a high level presentation. - Presentations should be against published material, not the latest state of the work, to make it easier for people to find additional information.

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts"
by Dave Berry 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Steve, I don't want to have "exciting" GGFs; I just want meetings where we can get some work done. Several developments at GGF16 seemed to be pushing us along, with practical, focussed work on standards & interoperation. The Grid Interoperation Now sessions are one such. The proposal for an OGSA-HPC design is another. I like focussed, incremental steps like these that start from where people are now. Best wishes, Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Loughran Sent: 20 February 2006 15:09 To: Marvin Theimer Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; Marty Humphrey; gcf(a)grids.ucs.indiana.edu Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts" Marvin Theimer wrote: > Enclosed is a paper that advocates an additional set of activities > that the authors believe that the OGSA working groups should engage in. > Marv -could you also send out the slides that we saw at the F2F; not everyone on the mail list will have seen them. > > > Broadly speaking, the OGSA and related working groups are already > doing a bunch of important things: > > * There is broad exploration of the big picture, including > enumeration of use cases, taxonomy of areas, identification of > research issues, etc. > > * There is work going on in each of the horizontal areas that > have been identified, such as EMS, data services, etc. > > * There is working going around individual specifications, such > as BES, JSDL, etc. > > > > Given that individual specifications are beginning to come to > fruition, the authors believe it is time to also start defining > "vertical profiles" that precisely describe how groups of individual > specifications should be employed to implement specific use cases in > an interoperable manner. The authors also believe that the process of > defining these profiles offers an opportunity to "close the design loop" > by relating the various on-going protocol and standards efforts back > to the use cases in a very concrete manner. This provides an > end-to-end setting in which to identify holes and issues that might > require additional protocols and/or (incremental) changes to existing > protocols. The paper introduces both the general notion of doing > focused vertical "design efforts" and then focuses on a specific > vertical design effort, namely a minimal HPC design. > > > > The paper derives a specific HPC design in a "first principles" manner > since the authors believe that this increases the chances of > identifying issues. As a consequence, existing specifications and the > activities of existing working groups are not mentioned and this paper > is not an attempt to actually define a specifications profile. Also, > the absence of references to existing work is not meant to imply that > such work is in any way irrelevant or inappropriate. The paper should > be viewed as a first abstract attempt to propose a new kind of activity within OGSA. > The expectation is that future open discussions and publications will > explore the concrete details of such a proposal. > > > > This paper was recently sent to a few key individuals in order to get > feedback from them before submitting it to the wider GGF community. > Unfortunately that process took longer than intended and some members > of the community may have already seen a copy of the paper without > knowing the context within it was written. This email should > hopefully dispel any misconceptions that may have occurred. > I don't know whether it was good or bad that the paper didnt surface till after the main GGF was over; I think it could have been a more exciting conference if we had this paper to talk about all week. Regarding the contents, pragmatic and evolutionary are a good way of learning what works, though hill-climbing solutions are always a risk. I do worry about the use of "non-contentious" technologies, because I'd like to see a mention of "stable and broadly implemented" in there too. There are many specs beginning with WS- that, while non contentious, are too unstable to make the underpinnings of anything 'strategic'. I will not name the guilty here; there are too many to choose from. One thing that worries me as someone in a downstream group is this new trend for parallel profiles, the WSDM and the other one. This is not sustainable. Not only does it double the engineering costs of the standards group (double the profiles, tests, docs...), if you split the set of possible interoperable nodes in two, the value of each partition network is reduced to a quarter of that possible, as Metcalfe's law kicks in on the fractions. That was the Corba mistake: not caring enough about interop on the wire. -Steve

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts"
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Savas, Good to hear from you! What I meant was that 'at the current time' a profile would be classified as informational because of the status of some of the specifications. I expect that most of those specifications will be at Committee Draft before the profile is published. The one sticky point would be WS-Policy. Currently some of the specs reference WS-Policy. Near as I can tell it is not 'yet' in any standards body. Do you know what the plans are there? Thanks, Tom Mobile: +1-845-729-4806 > -----Original Message----- > From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:47 AM > To: Savas Parastatidis > Cc: Maguire, Tom; Marvin Theimer; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Tony Hey; > humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu; gcf(a)grids.ucs.indiana.edu > Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design > efforts" > > Hi Savas, > > GFD.59 "OGSA profile definition" prescribes not only "OASIS standard" > but also "OASIS TC Committee Drafts" can be referenced from > Recommended Profile at the Proposed Recommendation stage of > publication. > > However, OGSA-WG agreed to wait for WSRF specs become "OASIS standards" > since it is expected to happen at latest end of March. > > Thanks, > ---- > Hiro Kishimoto > > Savas Parastatidis wrote: > > I am not familiar with GFD-I.59. From your description, is it right to > > assume that even the WS-RF-based profile is going to be informational > > given that WS-RF and related specs were not standards at the time the > > work on the profile started? > > > > -- > > Savas Parastatidis > > http://savas.parastatidis.name > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] > >>Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:11 PM > >>To: Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com > >>Cc: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; > >>humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu; gcf(a)grids.ucs.indiana.edu > >>Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design > >>efforts" > >> > >>Hi Tom, > >> > >>You are absolutely right. If the upcoming HPC profile refers to non- > >>standard spec(s), it should be categorized as "informational." > >>---- > >>Hiro Kishimoto > >> > >>Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com wrote: > >> > >>>I appreciate and agree with the perspective that suggests that OGSA > >>>functionality be profiled using existing agreed upon specifications. > >>>Are you suggesting WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation, and > >>>WS-ReliableMessaging as those common, agreed upon, non-controversial > >>>specifications? Some of these are at Standard (WS-Security), some > > > > are > > > >>>at committee draft (WS-ReliableMessaging) and some of them are at > >>>editor drafts (WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation). The GGF guidelines > >>>for OGSA Profile Definition (GFD-I.59) would require that a profile > >>>based on these specifications be classified as an Informational > >>>Profile (given the current state of the specifications). Further I > >>>would like to point out that the normative thorn in the side here > >> > >>continues to be WS-Policy. > >> > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Tom > >>> > >>>Mobile: +1-845-729-4806 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>________________________________ > >>> > >>> From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > > > > Behalf > > > >>>Of Marvin Theimer > >>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:45 AM > >>> To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > >>> Cc: Marvin Theimer; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; Marty > > > > Humphrey; > > > >>>gcf(a)grids.ucs.indiana.edu > >>> Subject: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design > >>>efforts" > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Enclosed is a paper that advocates an additional set of > > > > activities > > > >>>that the authors believe that the OGSA working groups should engage > >>>in. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Broadly speaking, the OGSA and related working groups are > > > > already > > > >>>doing a bunch of important things: > >>> > >>> * There is broad exploration of the big picture, > >>>including enumeration of use cases, taxonomy of areas, > > > > identification > > > >>>of research issues, etc. > >>> > >>> * There is work going on in each of the horizontal areas > >>>that have been identified, such as EMS, data services, etc. > >>> > >>> * There is working going around individual > >>>specifications, such as BES, JSDL, etc. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Given that individual specifications are beginning to come to > >>>fruition, the authors believe it is time to also start defining > >>>"vertical profiles" that precisely describe how groups of individual > >>>specifications should be employed to implement specific use cases in > >>>an interoperable manner. The authors also believe that the process > > > > of > > > >>>defining these profiles offers an opportunity to "close the design > > > > loop" > > > >>>by relating the various on-going protocol and standards efforts back > >>>to the use cases in a very concrete manner. This provides an > >>>end-to-end setting in which to identify holes and issues that might > >>>require additional protocols and/or (incremental) changes to > > > > existing > > > >>protocols. > >> > >>>The paper introduces both the general notion of doing focused > > > > vertical > > > >>>"design efforts" and then focuses on a specific vertical design > >>>effort, namely a minimal HPC design. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The paper derives a specific HPC design in a "first principles" > >>>manner since the authors believe that this increases the chances of > >>>identifying issues. As a consequence, existing specifications and > > > > the > > > >>>activities of existing working groups are not mentioned and this > > > > paper > > > >>>is not an attempt to actually define a specifications profile. > > > > Also, > > > >>>the absence of references to existing work is not meant to imply > > > > that > > > >>>such work is in any way irrelevant or inappropriate. The paper > > > > should > > > >>>be viewed as a first abstract attempt to propose a new kind of > >>>activity within OGSA. The expectation is that future open > > > > discussions > > > >>>and publications will explore the concrete details of such a > > > > proposal. > > > >>> > >>> > >>> This paper was recently sent to a few key individuals in order > > > > to > > > >>get > >> > >>>feedback from them before submitting it to the wider GGF community. > >>>Unfortunately that process took longer than intended and some > > > > members > > > >>>of the community may have already seen a copy of the paper without > >>>knowing the context within it was written. This email should > >>>hopefully dispel any misconceptions that may have occurred. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For those people who will be around on for the F2F meetings on > >>>Friday, Marvin Theimer will be giving a talk on the contents of this > >>>paper at a time and place to be announced. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Marvin Theimer, Savas Parastatidis, Tony Hey, Marty Humphrey, > >>>Geoffrey Fox > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts"
by Hiro Kishimoto 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Hi Savas, GFD.59 "OGSA profile definition" prescribes not only "OASIS standard" but also "OASIS TC Committee Drafts" can be referenced from Recommended Profile at the Proposed Recommendation stage of publication. However, OGSA-WG agreed to wait for WSRF specs become "OASIS standards" since it is expected to happen at latest end of March. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Savas Parastatidis wrote: > I am not familiar with GFD-I.59. From your description, is it right to > assume that even the WS-RF-based profile is going to be informational > given that WS-RF and related specs were not standards at the time the > work on the profile started? > > -- > Savas Parastatidis > http://savas.parastatidis.name > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] >>Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:11 PM >>To: Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com >>Cc: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; >>humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu; gcf(a)grids.ucs.indiana.edu >>Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design >>efforts" >> >>Hi Tom, >> >>You are absolutely right. If the upcoming HPC profile refers to non- >>standard spec(s), it should be categorized as "informational." >>---- >>Hiro Kishimoto >> >>Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com wrote: >> >>>I appreciate and agree with the perspective that suggests that OGSA >>>functionality be profiled using existing agreed upon specifications. >>>Are you suggesting WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation, and >>>WS-ReliableMessaging as those common, agreed upon, non-controversial >>>specifications? Some of these are at Standard (WS-Security), some > > are > >>>at committee draft (WS-ReliableMessaging) and some of them are at >>>editor drafts (WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation). The GGF guidelines >>>for OGSA Profile Definition (GFD-I.59) would require that a profile >>>based on these specifications be classified as an Informational >>>Profile (given the current state of the specifications). Further I >>>would like to point out that the normative thorn in the side here >> >>continues to be WS-Policy. >> >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Tom >>> >>>Mobile: +1-845-729-4806 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>________________________________ >>> >>> From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > > Behalf > >>>Of Marvin Theimer >>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:45 AM >>> To: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org >>> Cc: Marvin Theimer; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; Marty > > Humphrey; > >>>gcf(a)grids.ucs.indiana.edu >>> Subject: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design >>>efforts" >>> >>> >>> >>> Enclosed is a paper that advocates an additional set of > > activities > >>>that the authors believe that the OGSA working groups should engage >>>in. >>> >>> >>> >>> Broadly speaking, the OGSA and related working groups are > > already > >>>doing a bunch of important things: >>> >>> * There is broad exploration of the big picture, >>>including enumeration of use cases, taxonomy of areas, > > identification > >>>of research issues, etc. >>> >>> * There is work going on in each of the horizontal areas >>>that have been identified, such as EMS, data services, etc. >>> >>> * There is working going around individual >>>specifications, such as BES, JSDL, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Given that individual specifications are beginning to come to >>>fruition, the authors believe it is time to also start defining >>>"vertical profiles" that precisely describe how groups of individual >>>specifications should be employed to implement specific use cases in >>>an interoperable manner. The authors also believe that the process > > of > >>>defining these profiles offers an opportunity to "close the design > > loop" > >>>by relating the various on-going protocol and standards efforts back >>>to the use cases in a very concrete manner. This provides an >>>end-to-end setting in which to identify holes and issues that might >>>require additional protocols and/or (incremental) changes to > > existing > >>protocols. >> >>>The paper introduces both the general notion of doing focused > > vertical > >>>"design efforts" and then focuses on a specific vertical design >>>effort, namely a minimal HPC design. >>> >>> >>> >>> The paper derives a specific HPC design in a "first principles" >>>manner since the authors believe that this increases the chances of >>>identifying issues. As a consequence, existing specifications and > > the > >>>activities of existing working groups are not mentioned and this > > paper > >>>is not an attempt to actually define a specifications profile. > > Also, > >>>the absence of references to existing work is not meant to imply > > that > >>>such work is in any way irrelevant or inappropriate. The paper > > should > >>>be viewed as a first abstract attempt to propose a new kind of >>>activity within OGSA. The expectation is that future open > > discussions > >>>and publications will explore the concrete details of such a > > proposal. > >>> >>> >>> This paper was recently sent to a few key individuals in order > > to > >>get >> >>>feedback from them before submitting it to the wider GGF community. >>>Unfortunately that process took longer than intended and some > > members > >>>of the community may have already seen a copy of the paper without >>>knowing the context within it was written. This email should >>>hopefully dispel any misconceptions that may have occurred. >>> >>> >>> >>> For those people who will be around on for the F2F meetings on >>>Friday, Marvin Theimer will be giving a talk on the contents of this >>>paper at a time and place to be announced. >>> >>> >>> >>> Marvin Theimer, Savas Parastatidis, Tony Hey, Marty Humphrey, >>>Geoffrey Fox >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts"
by Hiro Kishimoto 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Savas' email bounced. -- Hiro Kishimoto Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts" Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:52:03 -0800 From: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis(a)microsoft.com> I am not familiar with GFD-I.59. From your description, is it right to assume that even the WS-RF-based profile is going to be informational given that WS-RF and related specs were not standards at the time the work on the profile started? -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:11 PM >> To: Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com >> Cc: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; >> humphrey(a)cs.virginia.edu; gcf(a)grids.ucs.indiana.edu >> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design >> efforts" >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> You are absolutely right. If the upcoming HPC profile refers to non- >> standard spec(s), it should be categorized as "informational." >> ---- >> Hiro Kishimoto >> >> Maguire_Tom(a)emc.com wrote: > >>> > I appreciate and agree with the perspective that suggests that OGSA >>> > functionality be profiled using existing agreed upon specifications. >>> > Are you suggesting WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation, and >>> > WS-ReliableMessaging as those common, agreed upon, non-controversial >>> > specifications? Some of these are at Standard (WS-Security), some are >>> > at committee draft (WS-ReliableMessaging) and some of them are at >>> > editor drafts (WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation). The GGF guidelines >>> > for OGSA Profile Definition (GFD-I.59) would require that a profile >>> > based on these specifications be classified as an Informational >>> > Profile (given the current state of the specifications). Further I >>> > would like to point out that the normative thorn in the side here > >> continues to be WS-Policy. > >>> > >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > Tom >>> > >>> > Mobile: +1-845-729-4806 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>=20

1 0

Re: [ogsa-wg] HPC Use Case ....
by Subramaniam, Ravi 21 Feb '06

21 Feb '06

Thanks Hiro! We may need to elborate on or modify the use case as will be needed for this excercise. Fyi: My original intention was to create a list of related use case situations; I have only the first two here (which explains the advanced topics you have mentioned below). As our focus on use cases changed I did not pursue that further. Ravi -----Original Message----- From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Mon Feb 20 18:16:49 2006 To: Subramaniam, Ravi Cc: ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] HPC Use Case .... Hi Ravi, Thanks for your usecase submission. I agree that most of this usecase can be viewed as HPC scenario. Although some of its requirements, e.g. optimization, self-healing, and self-descriptive, may be advanced topics, but they should be discussed by the new OGSA-HPC design team. Also, I've double checked our tier 2 usecase and found that yor usecase is incorporated as its chapter 2. But sections in the chapter are re-ordered to meet usecase template. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Subramaniam, Ravi wrote: > Hi, > > > > Based on the discussion on the F2F today, I have an action item to > resend the use case that I submitted to cover the HPC space. This was > first sent Feb, 2003 to OGSA. I had called it infrastructure management > but the first example is a HPC scenario. > > > > We may need to flesh this out and separate the relevant portions into a > new use case definition for the HPC focus activities. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Ravi > >

1 0