- 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