Minutes attached. https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc13636?nav=1 -- Andreas Savva Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd OGSA Teleconference - 29 June 2006 ================================== * Participants Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Darren Pulsipher (EMC) Steven Newhouse (OMII) Takuya Mori (NEC) Mark Morgan (UVa) Tom Maguire (EMC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Chris Jordan (SDSC) Donal Fellows (UoM) Minutes: Andreas Savva * June 22 minutes approved with no changes * June 26 minutes approved with no changes * Action review - Hiro to confirm contact with (ex-)EGA TC - Explained action background: look into holding a session to investigate how the EGA reference model fits with OGSA now that GGF and EGA have merged. - This would also be interesting for the Roadmap - Add sequence diagrams to the scenarios: (postpone until June 29) - Andreas will do the "Install application" scenario (3.1) - Mike will do the "Install application using ACS" scenario (3.3) - Other volunteers welcome. (Andreas will ask Donal for the EPS scenario) - Andreas has started doing the sequence diagrams in RSM - Darren volunteered to help out - Review again at the next EMS call (June 29) - Andreas will merge draft scenarios and sequence diagrams to the "EMS Architecture Scenarios" document (postpone until June 29) - Both of these actions are in progress and their status reviewed during this call. [It is ok to close both since the actions activities listed are part of the document preparation and are reviewed separately.] - Jay will contact Platform (Chris Smith) and Condor (Miron Livny) to get feedback on pros / cons of the two rendering approaches (postpone until June 19) - Waiting for Jay to get additional material - Waiting for Marvin's proposal - Darren/Andreas will take the Modeling position paper and discuss it within the JSDL-WG as well (postpone until June 19) - It was discussed on a call a few weeks ago and the group is in a wait-and-see state on this issue. Not clear what is new or better with this rendering proposal. - The overall activity is driven by the previous action. Closed. * Security discussion postponed * GGF18 sessions review - Groups get automatic approval if up to 2 sessions - Last call the proposal was for four so AD approval would be needed. - Possible F2F for the Friday. The venue is not fixed yet ACTION: Hiro will send out an email outlining the proposal and aim to confirm it on the next call * CDL documents review Hiro produced and sent out new versions of the CDL documents. A few remaining issues were discussed. - Location of application binary (to deploy from) and format. Agreed that in general the client would not know these (but may know under certain circumstances). So in general - deployer (or perhaps developer) produces (original) CDL - Client produces jsdl - And a repository or some other internal component keeps track of binaries and related information - Permission and Owner of files. - The binary does not have to be owned by the user running the job; user just needs to be able to execute. - Simplest case assume that the correct permissions/ownership are set in the archive - If the desire is to show it as an example in the CDL something like "root.bin 755" or perhaps "blast.blast 755" or 555 is appropriate. - These are also affected by system policy. - pre-script - Hiro has talked with Chris Smith and they have removed the pre-script. - Assume instead that the db is pre-formatted (perhaps by an earlier user job) and that it can be made available by requesting a specific filesystem be made available on the host. - Hiro added 'database' filesystem. ACTION: Hiro to ask Jun and Dejan to check the CDL documents ACTION: Hiro to also make any relevant updates to the Scenarios text ACTION: Jun/Hiro to also prepare the post-deployment BLAST CDL document * EMS Scenarios review Andreas sent out sequence diagrams produced by RSM. It includes a couple of the early scenarios (Direct and Indirect Job execution) and the "Deploy an application" scenario. This sequence diagram is based fairly closely to the text reviewed in earlier calls. Did a walkthrough of the Deploy scenario: - There are too many call outs to generic Information Services. These should be abbreviated in this scenario and expanded and made more concrete in others, e.g., the ACS or EPS scenarios. - Hiro's CDL does not allow the JM to change anything (and hostname is part of the deployment API). Need to look into this further. In any case it is important to also have an example of a post-deployment CDL document. (See action above) - There is a small mismatch between what the scenario describes as the interaction with the deployment service and what CDDLM seems to expect. Need to decide whether the scenarios should show the JM driving the interaction with CDDLM directly or whether there is a deployment service that does it. The next steps are to do the EPS sequence and the ACS sequence. ACTION: Andreas will send the EMS Model exported from RSM to Darren (done) ACTION: Donal will sent out the link to the draft EPS document (done) ACTION: Andreas to upload the sequence diagrams to Gridforge. Andreas will also prepare a revised EMS Scenarios document for the next call.