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