- ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

RE: [ogsa-wg] RE: One paragraph describing your expectations from the deployment component
by Milojicic, Dejan S 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

Thanks Ansdrew, We will get back to you before the meeting on Wednesday and we can discuss it in more detail at the meeting. Thank you very much for taking the time to summarize your expectations, it will go a long way towards clarifying how CDDLM can contribute to EMS. I am forwarding your email to the CDDLM mailing list. Best regards, Dejan > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On > Behalf Of Andrew Grimshaw > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 8:21 AM > To: Milojicic, Dejan S; 'Andrew Grimshaw' > Cc: 'Hiro Kishimoto'; 'Stuart Schaefer'; ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org > Subject: [ogsa-wg] RE: One paragraph describing your > expectations from the deployment component > > Dejan, et al, > > There are two basic things that EMS needs (in my opinion): > 1) The ability to identify on which hosts an activity can > execute because either the executable for the activity is > installed - or CAN BE installed. > 2) The ability to direct that the necessary components for an > activity be installed and configured in/on a container - > whether that means binaries and libraries, licenses, > databases, whatever. > > In both cases I do not want the activity started. > > Let me dive a bit deeper into both: > 1) The information needed to determine where an activity can > execute - either directly, or after some deployment step is > needed by RSS so that it can make scheduling decisions. While > it is not sufficient information to make scheduling > decisions, it is necessary. (Other info could include load, > whether a particular user has privileges or the necessary > currency, etc.) > > 2) Once a placement decision has been made then we must > ensure that the application/activity is ready to run on the > selected container resource. In the current JSDL model - all > of the information is carried in the executable information. > For more interesting, non-legacy, components latter, it is > likely that the mechanism in JSDL will not suffice. Thus, > something like: > Deploy("name of application/component", "name of container resource") > > Where each of the "names" are either path names in a > directory based service or EPR's of some sort. > > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milojicic, Dejan S [mailto:dejan.milojicic@hp.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:35 AM > To: Andrew Grimshaw > Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; Stuart Schaefer > Subject: One paragraph describing your expectations from the > deployment component > > Hi Andrew, > > At Boston, you agreed to provide one paragraph describing > your expectations from the deployment component. You have > articulated it at that time. Using this paragraph, we'll > provide a feedback on how we match your expectations. > > Can you please provide this paragraph to us? This is in > preparation for the OGSA meeting on 11/9 which CDDLM > participants will join. > > Thanks, > > Dejan. > >

1 0

RE: One paragraph describing your expectations from the deployment component
by Andrew Grimshaw 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

Dejan, et al, There are two basic things that EMS needs (in my opinion): 1) The ability to identify on which hosts an activity can execute because either the executable for the activity is installed - or CAN BE installed. 2) The ability to direct that the necessary components for an activity be installed and configured in/on a container - whether that means binaries and libraries, licenses, databases, whatever. In both cases I do not want the activity started. Let me dive a bit deeper into both: 1) The information needed to determine where an activity can execute - either directly, or after some deployment step is needed by RSS so that it can make scheduling decisions. While it is not sufficient information to make scheduling decisions, it is necessary. (Other info could include load, whether a particular user has privileges or the necessary currency, etc.) 2) Once a placement decision has been made then we must ensure that the application/activity is ready to run on the selected container resource. In the current JSDL model - all of the information is carried in the executable information. For more interesting, non-legacy, components latter, it is likely that the mechanism in JSDL will not suffice. Thus, something like: Deploy("name of application/component", "name of container resource") Where each of the "names" are either path names in a directory based service or EPR's of some sort. Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Milojicic, Dejan S [mailto:dejan.milojicic@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:35 AM To: Andrew Grimshaw Cc: Hiro Kishimoto; Stuart Schaefer Subject: One paragraph describing your expectations from the deployment component Hi Andrew, At Boston, you agreed to provide one paragraph describing your expectations from the deployment component. You have articulated it at that time. Using this paragraph, we'll provide a feedback on how we match your expectations. Can you please provide this paragraph to us? This is in preparation for the OGSA meeting on 11/9 which CDDLM participants will join. Thanks, Dejan.

1 0

RE: OGSA 1.5: transaction reference
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 07 Nov '05

07 Nov '05

WS-AtomicTransaction submission document to WS-TX TC in OASIS (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/) is http://xml.coverpages.org/WS-AtomicTransaction200508.pdf Some things to watch out for; references to the following specs: WS-Policy (just public at this point not in standards body) WS-PolicyAttachment (just public at this point not in a standards body) WS-SecurityPolicy (new TC WS-SX) WS-SecureConversation (new TC WS-SX) WS-Trust (new TC WS-SX) Also using the older August 2004 WS-Addressing specification. Tom -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 4:24 AM To: Maguire, Tom Cc: Dave Berry Subject: Re: OGSA 1.5: transaction reference Hi Tom This is another reminder for the action below. Andreas Savva wrote: > Hi Tom > > A reminder that you volunteered to provide a reference to the > Transactions spec. > > >> - Transactions: Tom to send reference > > > -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd

1 0

Joining at approximately 5:30PM ET
by Maguire_Tom＠emc.com 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '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

FW: [Fwd: Revised Selected Job Example]
by Treadwell, Jem 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi, I'm forwarding this for today's meeting on behalf of Steven... - Jem -----Original Message----- From: Steven Newhouse [mailto:sjn5@doc.ic.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 5:11 PM To: Treadwell, Jem Subject: [Fwd: Revised Seclected Job Example] -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Proposed agenda for Nov. 2nd call
by Hiro Kishimoto 02 Nov '05

02 Nov '05

Hi all, The following is a proposed agenda for OGSA-WG telecon on Nov. 2nd Wednesday from 4pm to 6pm (CST). *ATTENTION* From Oct. 31 and onward telecon starts one hour earlier 5pm EST = 4pm CST = 2pm PST = 10pm UK = 7am JST 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: 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 (Oct. 26) https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20051026/en/1 Agenda bashing 2) EPR/WS-name use policy in OGSA (30 min) > - Add to the agenda a review the state of the naming > discussion/decisions. From F2F meeting minutes; > The group went through the exercise of doing a number of straw polls > to identify the weight people put on various approaches. > > In summary: > "MUST support EPRs, may support WS-Names or RRs or other things" > > It seems to depend on the situation whether to use something > beyond an EPR. Need more exploratory work to identify which areas > would benefit from using WS-Names or RenewableReference. > > - Proposal to also just say they are EPRs that may be decorated > (and hence be WS-Names) See also discussion thread; http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-bes-wg/2005/10/msg00002.html 3) EMS architecture discussion (30 min) usecase 2.4 "Dynamic Job Selection" > Instead of using a static pre-defined list of BES instances these > service interfaces will be obtained and selected from a service > registry (information service). With a defined selection language the > RSS implementation can be more sophisticated than in 2.3 allowing a > user defined selection policy to be applied to the available services > in the registry. Requirements: Information/Data model to represent > the service and a selection language. > > The state of art – EGEE & OSG & Naregi. https://forge.gridforum.org/docman2/ViewCategory.php?group_id=42&category_i… - Steven N will do a first draft. 4) information model discussion (30 min) > Action: Andrew to review and point out what is needed for the > BES container > - Goal for next Wed: A preliminary set of attributes that are > needed for the BES container 5) Common UML tool (20 min) > - Mike Behrens has some experience with a number of the listed > tools. He volunteered to check out the rest and give an > evaluation next week > - export/import as one required feature > - One of the IBM participants will follow up and confirm the > procedures needed and that everyone can use the RSM tool, if the > group decides to go with it. 6) Wrap up AOB <NEXT CALL> Nov. 7 (Mon) Basic Security Profile document final(?) review, Architecture & Glossary 1.5 Nov. 9 (Wed) EMS architecture, CDDLM/ACS/GRAAP joint call information model & CIM profile Nov. 14 (Mon) OGSA-AuthZ joint call Architecture & Glossary 1.5 Telecon schedule: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/telecon_schedule/ -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

WS-RenewableReferences
by Andrew Harrison 01 Nov '05

01 Nov '05

Hi, Does anyone know the status of WS-RenewableReferences? I understand it's been removed from WSRF and have heard something about OGSA having a profile that covers the same area. Any ideas? cheers, Andrew

3 2

No RM teleconference on November 1st
by Fred Maciel 01 Nov '05

01 Nov '05

Hi, First of all, given that we are using the teleconferences of the OGSA-WG itself to discuss information modeling, the RM design team teleconferences are now in an "off-by-default" mode, i.e., if no announcement is posted then there won't be a teleconference. So, I didn't really need to post this announcement that we won't have a teleconference tomorrow, but I'm sending it just in case (for the last time...). Regards, Fred Maciel Hitachi America R&D

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 24 October 2005
by Andreas Savva 31 Oct '05

31 Oct '05

Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20051024/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 24 October 2005 ===================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Dave Berry (NeSC) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Tom Maguire (EMC) Takuya Mori (NEC) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Teleconference minutes - Oct. 19 minutes approved with no changes. - Hiro's proposed modifications to previously approved minutes (see mailing list) accepted with the exception of modifying the 'profile' term---it is not a minutes issue. - Hiro to follow up with the RM team on what the proper term should be. - Andreas to correct the other issues. * OGSA Architecture 1.5 - Review of draft 2: Data requirements and Data Capability ** Data requirements - Added policy specification & management - "OGSA must provide consistent update.." is not intended as a general requirement for all services since some could provide weaker consistency. - Agreed to change to "agreed or decided level..." - Use OGSA as an adjective. - Andreas & Jem to review the usage in this document and propose revised usage. - Usage of 'should', 'must' etc - Prioritizing requirements is not a goal for this version so there is no normative meaning implied. - Andreas & Jem to review and provide guidelines - 'Data discovery' and 'Metadata catalogues' and interraction with information services. - Dave B has asked Abdeslem to check the revised text. - Is 'Transport selection' mentioned? In the Data capability section ** Data Capability - Modified definition (previously in terms of providing one or more specific interface). - Deleted the EMS like supply-demand section since explanation was unsatisfactory. No volunteers to write up properly. - What is the 'Legacy considerations' section? - Things that are not functionality or properties and seemed misplaced in previous drafts. - Agreed that the title needs revision. Considered alternatives and settled for "Heterogeneity and Extensibility" - XQuery was not a client API and was replaced by SAX/DOM - Data transfer: Added security paragraph - 'Autonomic' should be changed to 'self-managing' or 'autonomous' as used in other sections. - Simple Access: Add Byte IO reference. - In general refer to other grid-specific standards; but it is not necessary to provide references to all the non-grid ones. - Update: provisioning as implied by "Other examples..." moved here from a later paragraph. - Metadata catalogue: Waiting for feedback from Abdeslem as mentioned above. - Properties: Agreed to keep sub-sections separate (rather than merging in QoS) and to expand the QoS section - Agreed to add Integrity: Andrew will provide text. - Interactions with rest of OGSA - Transactions: Tom to send reference - Scheduling is a new sub-section - Provisioning text merged to earlier paragraph (see above) - The group worked on a high level architecture diagram during last May's F2F. Dave B to look into adding that diagram to this section. * Basic Security Profile review - Draft uploaded to gridforge by Takuya. Reviewed status of trackers. - 1656: Checked and fixed URI - 1657: Confirmed and updated extensibility points according to August version of WS-I BSP (in the process of bringing the rest of the text up to date). Also need to update Appendix B. - 1658: In progress; expect to be done by next Monday's call - 1659: SSL allowed as underlying protocol per WS-I BSP - 1660: Closed - 1661: Closed - 1662: Working on bringing up to date with August BSP 1.0 - 1663: Tom to follow up on it this week - 1685: Define 'secure channel' per Von's comment - Expected revised and possibly final text by next Monday - Also need to update the Roadmap and spreadsheet - Agreed it's a good idea to keep track of updates. Proposed and accepted to log all spec updates to the Roadmap 1.1 tracker. - Takuya will update the spreadsheet and section 5.2 of the Roadmap and references. - Unused references (due to dropping MLS) should be deleted. - Andreas to create a tracker for Roadmap 1.1 * MDC presentation Postponed for next call since Ravi was not present. * Glossary review - Tracker review. - 957: - Resource discovery: Agreed to include using Jem's revised definition. - Factory: add to the glossary. This is a generic definition not the OGSI one. - Grid environment: generic term; leave out - Heterogeneous, homogeneous: generic terms; leave out - Use case / Scenario usage is opposite to the industry usage. It was also pointed out that the usage within OGSA 1.0 may be inconsistent. - Andreas to review usage of "Use case / scenario" in the document and make sure that the terms are used consistently within the Architecture document. Check if they can be aligned with common usage; put an appropriate definition in the Glossary otherwise. - Publish/Subscribe - defined in line; leave out - Multicast - generic term; leave out - broadcast - generic term; leave out (also not used in the document). * Next call - Information model discussion - MDC presentation review - This is scheduled for December but the Title and Abstract should be submitted soon.

3 3

Teleconference minutes - 26 October 2005
by Andreas Savva 31 Oct '05

31 Oct '05

Minutes attached. Also https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20051026/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 26 October 2005 ===================================== * Participants Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Chris Jordan (SDSC) Andrew Grimshaw (UVa) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Allen Luniewski (IBM) Steven Newhouse (OMII) Kazushige Saga (NAREGI) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Ellen Stokes (IBM) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Jem Treadwell (HP) Jay Unger (IBM) Pete Ziu (Northrop Grumman) * Oct 24 minutes approved with no changes * Information model discussion - Ellen posted an initial draft of a mapping of GLUE to CIM to the list before the call. - This is still ongoing work; material is incomplete. - Ellen has also had the opportunity to talk with some of the GLUE authors this week and has gained a better understanding of the model. In particular, some elements in GLUE have had no experience; they may be included as placeholders to allow for extensibility later on. - Explanation of the MDS-GLUE-BES model (pdf file) - Items in blue are required by GLUE - Items in black are already in CIM - Items in red: - if {D} they deprecated by CIM - if {E} (experimental) they are new and need experience before complete acceptance - 'Blue' is GLUE-required and in CIM (or equivalent) - There are also a number of GLUE items that have not been mapped yet and so are not in the diagram (these are listed in the Excel sheet) - One example is 'site' - It is not in CIM and seems reasonable to add; but haven't done so yet. - Items such as 'Load' may map to CIM metrics instead - Some items may map to a combination of existing CIM entries: e.g., 'StorageDevice::Size' - For items such as ClockSpeed (l.162), and MTU (l.157): - These are defined as having one value while CIM has equivalent items that have two values: Maximum and Current. - The meaning is probably equivalent to 'Current' but need to confirm. - Also there are some items, e.g., lines 165-168, in the Excel sheet, that are not clear how they will be used. They have been added to GLUE on the assumption that they might be useful but there is no experience with them yet. - It was discussed how such items should be tackled. For example identifying the size of cache might be better abstracted as a memory performance metric. - Why is vendor model version needed? It seems like a composite identification for particular chip and chipset and might be required for specific codes. (Scientific codes may have different requirements.) - Following the above discussion it was clarified that the purpose of this modelling work is - For things that are obviously missing from CIM to extend CIM to include them; and - For things that may be too domain specific(*) and a CIM extension may not be appropriate at this time to show how they can be included without extending CIM formally. There will be no standard mapping for them but they can still be used. The guidelines document will show how these can be added to CIM in this way. [(*) These were called "situational extensions" during the teleconf call] - All these 'situational extensions' will be listed in the final version and will not be defined as either CIM or OGSA 'extensions' ** Slide 3: BES preliminary Action: Andrew to review and point out what is needed for the BES container - Goal for next Wed: A preliminary set of attributes that are needed for the BES container - Additional attributes (Network, Cluster, etc) to be added later incrementally. * UML tool selection - Probable usage is sequence diagrams and information modelling - Prefer a commercial tool (because it may be better supported) - Easy to use is a big advantage - RSM is commercial, has rich functionality but there are some concerns on how easy it is to start using it. - Also whether the IBM Scholar program is available only to US and Canada. - Agreed that it is not possible to make a decision on this call. - One of the IBM participants will follow up and confirm the procedures needed and that everyone can use the RSM tool, if the group decides to go with it. - Mike Behrens has some experience with a number of the listed tools. He volunteered to check out the rest and give an evaluation next week - export/import as one required feature * MDC presentation review - Ravi sent out modified presentation based on Andrew's presentation that was uploaded to Gridforge. - A 45 minutes slot in total is allocated for the presentation. There are too many slides as things stand. - Not sure if it includes Q&A; someone (Hiro?) has to confirm. - Audience? It is not clear. Assume people with various backgrounds. - What should the focus be? - On technical work; on process; or motivation/goal? - It is an introductory presentation. Jay and Hiro suggested a higher level of abstraction. It was agreed to do so and also add some slides on the connection between DMTF and OGSA. - Assume they know what a grid is, or just put one slide on what grid is - OGSA: what it is, what is based on, where it is going (a max of 3 slides) - Relation to other activities - More functional description of components in OGSA; component diagrams as in EMS for other capabilities if possible (not quite ready for this yet). - Slide 26 is good as standards landscape - Slide 24 is also good; add CIM and WSDM (and transitions to call out the standards bodies) - Slide 38 is good but maybe too detailed for this presentation - Slide 16 is ok; but it is not good to explain things from this slide - slide 22; Replace with Fred's version since it includes the CIM profile (Hiro will send to Ravi.) - Are the Acknowledments correct? - Ellen will help with DMTF-OGSA slide. Again start from Fred's slides at GGF15. - Ravi will update, and circulate to collect comments. - And arrange to have a short discussion on a subsequent call - Need to send agenda and title of this presentation to MDC: - Title: " Open Grid Services Architecture" and - Subtitle: "Service Oriented Architecture for Grids" - Agenda should be a paragraph of text. Ravi to write up. * EMS scenario review. Postponed. * Next call - Agreed to cancel the Monday call since it looks unlikely to reach quorum. - Next Wed: - Add to the agenda a reviewa the state of the naming discussion/decisions.

1 0