Minutes attached. Also https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes-20051205/en/1 Thanks to all who attended. -- Andreas Savva OGSA Teleconference - 5 December 2005 ===================================== * Participants Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Mark Morgan (UVa) Takuya Mori (NEC) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Jem Treadwell (HP) Minutes: Andreas Savva * November 30 minutes approved with no changes * Jan 2006 F2F update - Reviewed Hiro's revised agenda - Added a 1 hour slot for OGSA 1.5 on Tuesday - Hiro to do attendance survey * GGF16 update - Hiro to send out request for topic ideas to the list for 2 sessions at GGF16 and Friday F2F. * Review of BSP - Secure channel - Review of tracker artifacts based on draft 12 uploaded by Takuya - 1697: Fixed; Closed - 1698: as agreed split off some of the topics to a separate document. Modified Abstract, Introduction, and removed Claims relating to tokens and key information exchange. - Abstract: also delete saml token profile from first paragraph - Agreed to change name of the 'OGSA BSP' to something like 'OGSA BSP - Core' - Proposed that Secure Channel and WSRF profile composition is optional while composition with 'OGSA BSP' is mandatory - Discussed at length with no consensus reached. In particular it is unclear whether the functionality in the Core profile is required by all using the WSRF BP, or not. Also whether there is a real dependency between the Core and the Secure Channel. - Takuya will review and try to clarify the relationship between the Core profile and the Secure Channel further: in particular if there is a dependency between the two (core must be used with secure channel) or a looser relationship (may be combined). And whether there is any change in the relationship with the WSRF BP. E.g., if only the core may expose the claim defined by the WSRF BP should the text currently in the WSRF BP be modified? - Allow 1 week to settle this issue; rather than another document review discuss this issue on the list or on a call with Tom M and Frank S. - Normative and Non-normative references - Should these be separated and if so, should they be split by type of usage? (There are some inconsistent examples.) - Agreed on the call that if they are separated then they should be separated by usage. - Andreas will follow up with the GGF Editor. - Namespace table - The table should be re-checked since some of remaining entries seem unlikely to be used in the document. E.g., soap. - Appendix A. delete obsolete references (the first 2) - Appendix C needs update * OGSA 1.5 review - Andreas gave a quick overview of status - Waiting for 'Data Integrity' section from Andrew G. - Waiting for 'Infrastructure : Representing State' proposal from Jay U. - Waiting for Naming issue to be settled to fix a sub-section in Infrastructure. - Waiting for BES and Naming policy to be fixed to review the EMS revision - Fixing some terminology issues (use case and scenario, acronyms, etc) - Reviewed the glossary draft: new entries for acronyms. - Some concerns with drawing technical references from Wikipedia. The main issue being that the information may change at a later point so a reference might no longer look the way it was when cited. - In principle try to avoid such references. It is fine to put an informative link but there should be a more formal reference to a more stable source, e.g., an RFC.