- ogsa-wg - lists.ogf.org

GGF14 slide template
by Hiro Kishimoto 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

Hi GGF14 presenters, As usual, I've upload slide template to GridForge. If you need ppt template, please use this. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/GGF14_slide_template/… The file also includes template of session report for OGSA-WG #12 report session; Outcomes and achievements, Open Issues, and action items & next step. Session owners: Please fill in after your session and bring them to the session #12 (Thue 11am-12:30pm) or send them to me in advance. Thanks, -- Hiro Kishimoto

1 1

Tuesday noon session
by Andrew Grimshaw 27 Jun '05

27 Jun '05

All, I know many of you want to attend the MWS BOF. However, I encourage you to attend the Tuesday noon OGSA session. Paul Strong from EGA will be presenting their reference model - and I think it is important that we all understand their perspective. Andrew.

1 0

[ogsa-wg | Roadmap - 1549] Roadmap Text From UniGrids (Dave Snelling)
by Sourceforge Tracker Monitor 26 Jun '05

26 Jun '05

A new artifact has been added: 1549 Submitted by: Jem Treadwell Submitted date: 2005-06-26 16:07:39 Respond by visiting: https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=789&aid=1549&group_id… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=789&aid=1549&group_id…) Summary: Roadmap Text From UniGrids (Dave Snelling) Project: Open Grid Services Architecture Tracker: Roadmap Artifact ID: 1549 Category: <None> Group: <None> Status: Open Priority: 2 Last Modified By: Jem Treadwell Last Modified: 2005-06-26 16:07:39 Submitted By: Jem Treadwell Submit Date: 2005-06-26 16:07:39 Assigned To: Jem Treadwell File(s): <None> Description: Dave Snelling provided the following text for the OSS Projects section, after the start of Public Comment. Hiro and Jem, Here are some words from the UniGrids project, if it is not too late: The UniGrids project will develop a Grid Service infrastructure compliant with the Open Grid Services Architecture (OGSA), and based on the Web Service Resource Framework (WS-RF), and the UNICORE Grid software. The guiding principle of the project will be both to adopt and to influence standards in key project areas. The first version of Unicore/GS (the software developed by the UniGrids project) implements WS-RF, WS-Adressing and JSDL. In addition the second version of Unicore/GS will implement OGSA-BES and provide support for WS-Security, SAML Authorization, and WS-Notification. -- 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) View the Roadmap : https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=… (https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/index.php?func=browse&group_id=42&atid=…)

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents
by Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) 25 Jun '05

25 Jun '05

IN this case There is already a WG that is working a major relevant spec for Info services. As this work progresses and we define the scope of info services better, there might be a need for new specs. IN that case a WG will be spawned. Abdeslem -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org on behalf of Steven Newhouse Sent: Thu 6/23/2005 12:58 PM To: Djaoui, A (Abdeslem) Cc: Treadwell, Jem; Hiro Kishimoto; Tom Maguire; ogsa-wg Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Minor comments on documents > Should you add "or design teams" at the end. I am raising this because > for informations services there is no plan to form a WG. If there is substantial activity - and certainly if specs are to be written - I believe this should take place in its own WG. It keeps the role and activity of the main OGSA-WG clear and focussed. Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Tel:+44 (0)2380 598789 Deputy Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute (OMII) Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, Southampton University, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
by Dave Berry 25 Jun '05

25 Jun '05

After some thought, my current opinion is that the right time to start work on a new basic profile will be when all the relevant specifications have been submitted to standards bodies. In the meantime, I would encourage people to concentrate on all the higher-level questions that we have yet to resolve - including a framework for describing, naming and managing resources, data transfer, advance reservation, security, delegation, privacy, agreement negotiation, information monitoring and dissemination, data access and replication, workflow, etc. I think OGSA is most likely to fail if we focus on low-level issues at the expense of the larger operations which users actually need and want from us. This approach is also in keeping with the 'O' in OGSA, which stands in large part for Open Standards. (FWIW, this is also true of the 'O' in OMII). In line with this reasoning, I regret that I won't be attending this BOF - which is why I'm posting my opinion here. In fact my position was partly crystallised by the realisation that the other sessions that clash this BOF are more important to me. This is not a position about whether to have multiple basic profiles at all, just on the timing of new work. And of course it's just my opinion. Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Berry Sent: 22 June 2005 23:08 To: Marty Humphrey; Ogsa-Wg Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30 Marty, The reason I asked about the status of the specifications was to clarify what sort of profile document could be produced at the present time. OGSA profiles are governed by a set of rules (https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-pr ofile-definition/en/12). Currently, if a group were to publish a profile document, it would have to be an Informational Profile. It could not be a Recommended Profile because the specifications are not yet in a standards body. Of course, this does not preclude people working on a draft profile with the intent of moving it into the publication process at some later date. I suggest that a question for the BOF to discuss is, given the above process, at what point does it become worth spending time on a draft profile? (I am not presuming an answer to this question one way or another). Switching to the question of WS-Enumeration, your answer seems to validate my initial concern. The issue that WS-Enumeration attempts to address is real and is considered in part by various working groups in the data area, but to me it doesn't seem part of a basic profile. Of course, the fact that I haven't seen a technical reason that links WS-Enumeration closely to the other specs doesn't mean that such a reason doesn't exist! Dave. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Marty Humphrey Sent: 22 June 2005 12:45 To: 'Ogsa-Wg' Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30 > 1. Please could you clarify the status of WS-Transfer, WS-Eventing > and WS-Enumeration in the terms of the OGSA Profile template? I.e. > have they been submitted to an SDO, are they draft or evolving, etc.? As you know, there is a 4-step process by which these specs will become standards: [1] "Develop", in which the spec is published; [2] "Broader Participation", in which there are feedback and interop workshops (resulting in possibly revising and republishing the specs); [3] "Standardization", in which the specs are submitted to a standardization body, which then can modify the spec as well and eventually ratify; [4] "Profiles", in which a separate document shows how to *combine* specs, generally resulting in a "subsetting" of the original specs. On Dec 1, 2004, Intel hosted a "feedback" workshop (step [2]), above, for WS-Enumeration and WS-Transfer. The companies attending the workshop included AMD, Computer Associates, Dell, HP, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, SAP, Sharp, Sonic, Sun, veritas, et. al. Although I can't entirely confirm this, it looks like the following companies brought implementations of WS-Enumeration/WS-Transfer to this workshop: Microsoft, Dell, Intel, NetIQ, Sun, and WebMethods. On Feb 19, 2004, Tibco hosted a "feedback" workshop for WS-Eventing. Attendees included Microsoft, BEA, IBM, NEC, Sonic, etc. On April 15, 2004, Microsoft hosted an "interop" workshop on WS-Eventing ("The outcome of the workshop was the demonstration of interoperability among all the 7 implementations." The seven implementations were from BEA, Canon, Epson, Microsoft, Ricoh, Sonic, and Systinet.) It looks like there will be another WS-Eventing workshop, although the date/time have not been announced. The most recent specs are: -- WS-Eventing: Aug 2004 (Authors: IBM, BEA, Computer Associates, Microsoft, Sun, and Tibco). This new version modifies the original version (Jan 2004, I believe) to reflect the workshops. -- WS-Enumeration: Sept 2004 (Authors: Systinet, Microsoft, Sonic, BEA, Computer Associates). This is the first version of the spec. -- WS-Transfer: Sept 2004 (Authors: Systinet, Microsoft, Sonic, BEA, Computer Associates). This is the first version of the spec. There's an interesting graphic that shows some of the progress from Microsoft's perspective here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/graphics/workshop-timeline.gif (this is taken from http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/community/workshops/default.aspx) > 2. I can see that WS-Transfer specifies some of the functionality of > WSRF and WS-Eventing is largely equivalent to WS-BaseNotification, but > what has WS-Enumeration to do with this? From a brief reading, it > seems to specify functionality that is independent of either stack. I can see this point -- in our initial designs and experimentation with WS-Transfer and WS-Eventing, we chose to not utilize WS-Enumeration. But we are increasingly considering WS-Enumeration as an important part of the story. >From Felipe Cabrera of Microsoft: "Many scenarios require data exchange using more than just a single request/response message pair. Types of applications that require these longer data exchanges include database queries, data streaming, the traversal of information such as namespaces, and enumerating lists. Enumeration, in particular, is achieved through establishing a session between the data source and the requestor. This session is established using the Enumerate operation, which provides an enumeration context that is then used in subsequent operations. Successive messages within the session transport the collection of elements being retrieved. No assumptions are made on the approach used by the service to organize the items that will be produced. What is expected is that under normal processing circumstances, the enumeration will produce all the underlying data before the end of the session.... In its simplest form, WS-Enumeration defines a single operation, Pull, which allows a data source, in the context of a specific enumeration, to produce a sequence of XML elements in the body of a SOAP message.... Three more request/response operations are defined in WS-Enumeration: Renew, GetStatus, and Release.... State information regarding the progress of the iteration can be maintained between requests by either the data source or the consuming service.... In addition to enumerating the data entities present in a Web service, it is convenient to be able to perform several basic operations on them. These operations are introduced in the WS-Transfer operation." I hope this helps, Marty Marty Humphrey Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science University of Virginia

1 0

OGSA Roadmap v1.0 submitted to GGF Editor
by Treadwell, Jem 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Hi, The document is at http://tinyurl.com/7r5tg <http://tinyurl.com/7r5tg> and has also been uploaded to the GGF Editor project. I made a few final edits, accepted all changes, and also added Hiro as co-editor. Hiro was responsible for the structure and much of the early content, and will continue to work on it in the future. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this effort - see you in Chicago! - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

Profile Definition v14 uploaded
by Treadwell, Jem 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Hi, I've uploaded v14 of the Profile Definition with some final edits. Dave S. will take a look at it over the weekend, and review all the changes. You can find the document at http://tinyurl.com/9fqx2. - Jem ________________________________ Jem Treadwell Hewlett-Packard Company 6000 Irwin Road Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Phone: 856-638-6021 Fax: 856-638-6190 E-mail: Jem.Treadwell(a)hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>

1 0

OGSA-RSS BoF at GGF14
by Mathias Dalheimer 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Dear all, please put the following date into your calendar: OGSA Resource Selection Services WG BoF Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:00pm to 3:30pm Westin Michigan Avenue Hotel, Chicago, Regent 2 meeting room To get an idea of the services this group will focus on, documents planned, milestones and the group's relation to other GGF groups, please visit the preliminary web site at: http://h63759.serverkompetenz.net:8668//space/start The charter draft is here: http://h63759.serverkompetenz.net:8668//space/Charter+Discussion/draft-ggf-… Hope to see you in Chicago, Mathias

1 0

Teleconference minutes - 22 June 2005
by Andreas Savva 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Minutes attached. Outline: GGF14 session preparation Profile definition review WSRF BP appendix E (security) review (minor) http://tinyurl.com/5fxfd/minutes-20050622/en/1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 22 June 2005 ================================== * Participants Dave Berry (NeSC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC, ANL) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwel (HP) Apologies: Tom Maguire Minutes: Andreas Savva * Minutes approval Minutes of June 13, 15 and 20 approved with no changes. * GGF14 preparation Reviewed sessions and assignments ** Session 1 - Hiro and Tom to give overview of OGSA activities. - Jem and Tom to give overview of the three documents (Profile definition, WSRF Basic Profile, Roadmap). A more detailed look at the documents in session 3. ** Session 2 - Andrew to lead. - It conflicts with MWS-BoF. - Fred volunteered to lead this EGA session if Andrew decides to attend the MWS-BoF instead. ** Session 3 - More detailed look at Profile definition, WSRF BP and Roadmap documents. - Hiro is looking for a place to have the "Next Step" discussion. Since Tom will attend only on Tuesday Hiro is thinking of using part of this session. Action: Hiro to talk to Tom and arrange a slot for the "Next Step" discussion; possibly in this session. ** Session 4 - Andrew to lead. - DMTF Utility WG wants a half-hour for a presentation(?) - Note this is not the RSS-BoF. The BoF is on the next day. - Conflicts with a Resource management session. ** Session 5 - Since the OGSA Naming-WG has been approved this is not an OGSA-WG session anymore. ** Session 6 - Fred is looking for a minute taker. - This is a working session; focus is technical discussion. ** Session 7 - Fred is looking for a minute taker. - Resource Model discussion (another working session) - Unfortunately this conflicts with security, data transfer, etc. ** Session 8 - In-depth technical discussion about WSDM ** Session 9 - How to use WSDM in OGSA specifications - Plan is for - WSDM presentation - CDDLM presentation - OGSA BP presentation - Need someone to give this presentation or Fred may do it himself if there is a ready presentation. - Fred to look into using the slides from Session 3. (Probably Tom's.) (There is a separate WSDM demo session. But it conflicts with many OGSA sessions. Fred will ask for the WSDM demo to start early so that if people leave the town hall meeting early (say 15 minutes earlier) they can still have a look.) ** Session 10 Recently an OGSA-AuthZ document was submited. One topic here should be to clarify the role of this document since it uses the 'OGSA' name. There are also a number of data related security issues. But due to conflicts Dave B is planning to arrange a separate teleconf after GGF14 to discuss them. ** Session 11 Abdeslem is the owner of this session. Hiro will follow up with him. ** Session 12 - This is the design team review meeting. Unfortunately many people cannot attend: Tom, Fred, Takuya, and Frank. - Team leaders who cannot attend should write up slides and ask someone else to present them. ** Other There has been no request for a phone bridge for any session. Hiro is not planning not set up one this time. There is a WSDM F2F in the IBM building, approximately 1 mile away from the hotel. It will be on Thursday and Friday and WSDM TC members can attend. * Profile definition review Discussed the document state and how likely it is to be able to submit this week. It looks difficult but doable. But it may have to be a very short final call. In any case submitting at the end of this week is partly symbolic---the group can say the document was submitted at the outreach session at GGF14. - Reviewed Jem's version (later revised and uploaded to gridforge by Andreas as v1.013) - Reviewed revised table - Jem added legend and fixed the formatting of the table. - Discussed using 'document' to mean 'profile or specification' in certain cases. Agreed it's ok, if it is in a context that does not cause confusion. The usage should be explained in advance, perhaps by putting a sentence in the "Terminology" section. - Section 3.3: - Added text (bullets) as proposed by Hiro. But the two sets say similar things. Reduced to one. - Also made the distinction between the bullets clearer (mandatory/optional distinction). - Started making a distinction between 'profile' and 'Profile' - Andreas will re-check usage during his review (done) - Added statement that informational profile references must also be consistent. - Added acknowledgments. - Discussed whether to have separate Contributors but decided that it is not important for this document. - Discussed who to add. Looked up recent review meetings and put a list together. - The list needs to be reviewed. - Introduction - An introduction section is needed. - Andreas to do a first pass. (done) - Adoption of profile - It was discussed and agreed on an earlier call that it is not correct to talk about a profile being implemented/adopted. But some text is needed to explain why. - Drafted text (profiles define compliance targets not implemention targets) and Andreas will review and possibly revise. (done) - Review Dave S's comment on adding more explanation on why adoption level does not apply to the entire referenced specification but only to those parts that are used in a conformance target. - Added text and Andreas will review and possibly revise for next version (done). - Jem will send his working draft to Andreas. Andreas will revise and upload the next draft within the day. (done) * Basic Profile review Tom could not make the call. Reviewed some BP security issues with Takuya. - Andreas cannot confirm the security related artifacts on the BP tracker. He asked Takuya to check these and post a comment in each artifact whether it can be closed or not. Andreas will then close them. - Appendix E review (security) - A number of minor comments from Hiro. - l.782 WS-Addressing reference should be to 1.0 - l.785 Delete the line - l.810-830: The XML fragment needs reformating - l.830-845: Dangling references - Takuya to check comments on appendix E and make updates. (Talk with Tom about getting the pen on the document or just update the appendix and send it to Tom.)

1 0

RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
by Fred Maciel 24 Jun '05

24 Jun '05

Marty, > FACT: Not everyone is enamored with WSRF, meaning that WSRF > is unlikely to > be "just there" in the tooling and infrastructure anytime soon. Re-read my e-mail again and tell me, where did I write "WSRF" there? You are putting words in my mouth. I don't care much what is used as a profile (if the IP of the protocols there is clear, and for instance I can write free software without nasty legal attacks -- I have an ugly scar on that one). What I care is that it's *one* profile, and things are interoperable. > OGSA-WG can choose to stick its collective head in the sand > and hope that > this issue goes away, By leaving the market choose, that's exactly what we are doing. :-) > Again, to stress, I personally just want convergence. That's exactly what I want too. Regards, Fred Maciel.

2 1