Minutes attached. Gridforge: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20050829/en/1 -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - 29 August 2005 ==================================== * Participants Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Latha Srinivasan (HP) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Takuya Mori (NEC) Tom Maguire (IBM) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Mike Behrens (R2AD, LLC) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Aug. 10 Teleconference Minutes: approved with no changes * OGSA Roadmap - Should have an OGSA trademark usage discussion - Tom will have updated sections for Jem by next call * August F2F evaluation - Consensus on the call that the meetings went well. - Probably set up the Dec/Jan one along the same lines - There is a GFSG meeting in January which some members will have to attend. Action: Hiro to do the usual survey for time/place. ** F2F minutes approval Andreas to do all necessary modifications. *** Day 1 - Attendee corrections: - Von's affiliation is NCSA - Add Ravi to participants (As a followup to the discussion Hiro has asked Frank to give the group information on security guidelines. Takuya to follow up with Frank.) Minutes approved with minor changes. *** Day 2 am: approved with no changes *** Day 2 pm - Add Component model to CDDLM documents list - Application Description should be Application Archive - "AA are the contents ..." should be revised to "AA provides the...." - "An archive description ..." should be changed ... to "i.e., dependencies. " - Minutes approved with minor modifications. *** Day 3 am - Change SOAP text: SOAP 1.2 is not compliant with BP 1.1 while SOAP 1.1 is. - Text starting with "As we move to implementing ..." should be moved under a different topic. Check meeting agenda for topic name. - Minutes approved with minor modifications *** Day 3 pm - Hiro to upload his presentation (re-charter) - Hiro to ask Steven N for his Glue presentation - Add Ravi to the attendees - Minutes approved with minor modifications *** Day 4 am - Approved with no changes *** Day 4 pm - Approved with no changes *** Day 5 am - Approved with no changes ** Other issues - Discussed and agreed that agenda topics should also be tracked. There is an existing tracker and the Chairs and Secretary will share the work of updating it. - Hiro to check what topics should be tracked from the minutes * Teleconference schedule review - 8/31 - Roadmap added - 9/5 - Labour day; no call - 9/7 - EMS discussion - Confirmed that Ravi can make it - Need to narrow down the agenda a bit more and decide if there is enough time to tackle all topics. - Hiro to follow up with chairs. - Architecture 1.5 moved to 9/14 - Resource information model changed to information model Action: Hiro will upload a revised version. * OGSA WSRF Basic Profile review - Major change is the removal/update of security section - Agreement at the F2F was to take the security sections/appendices out, require at least one security profile and then define more than one. - Changes to bring BP in line with the above. Remove list of security related profiles in Abstract - Removed section 8 (security) - Deleted normative and non-normative security related references - Changed appendices - Removed the EndpointKeyInfo element from schema. It now has to be defined in the appropriate security profile. - The referenced specifications table at the end needs update ** Security update - A conformant OGSA Basic Security 1.0 profile should expose a well known conformance claim, defined in wsdl - It is ok to have multiple claims - There MUST be a claim attachment. So it is a stronger statement than the WS-I profile claim attachement. - Have to state where it is attached (WS-I gives a choice of locations) - Agreed to attach to wsdl:portType (which is one of the WS-I choices) - Should the security profile be discussed in section 8 or in 1.2, or both? - Since the security profile(s) is not written yet it not clear how to discuss the relationship. In any case there is no restriction to stating profile relationships only in 1.2. - Agreed that some description should be added to section 1.2, with details in section 8 - Is claim attachment sufficient explanation or should there be more discussion on the requirements that a security profile should fulfill? - Security profile as envisaged right now only really covers secure communication - Agreed that it is not possible to describe the requirements such a profile has to satisfy at this point; besides the generic claim that the profile is compliant to the OGSA basic security 1.0 claim. - Each conformant security profile should define two conformance URIs: The well known conformance claim defined in the Basic Profile and an additional more specific claim to that security profile. - Agreed to change all namespace uris; delete the dates. Action: Tom to post revised versoin after the call - Ideally the BP should be submited together with the security profiles. - Tom and Takuya to try and coordinate to get all documents out at the same time (if possible) Action: Hiro to arrange for additional time slots on calls as needed for reviewing the security profiles. * Next call - It is not possible to discuss information modelling this week - Fred is planning to do an internal call next week tuesday. - Agreed to re-schedule for after Sep 19. - Roadmap and BP review for the next call.