Hi, I've uploaded Roadmap v19, and the spreadsheet. This includes my own editing changes from recent calls, the public comment changes, and the changes that Tom & Takuya made. All the referenced-spec tables are dated September 1st. I made some editing changes to Tom's text, and agreed it with Tom. I've also made some editing changes to Takuya's text: Takuy, can you please check this and verify that it's OK - I want to be sure I didn't change the meaning of anything you said. I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition. I'm not sure if that's a change that the group is planning before publication - Takuya, do you know? Also should we be making conformance a criteria for inclusion in section 5? We can discuss this on Wednesday, but if anyone has info or wants to comment by mail, go ahead. Thanks - have a great weekend... - 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@hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>
Jem et al, On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later version. In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that it is not in the expected format. I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help? -- 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)
Hi Dave, Jem, and Takuya, We have discussed how to update these two document at the August F2F meeting. From the meeting minutes;
Attributes document give information background and defines profiles. Hiro proposed to use profile format. Only part of document is profile, and the rest is informational. Part that is a profile can be changed to OGSA format. Tom: still struggling with document structure in OGSA. Discussion if document can be divided in two, to make clear what is normative and what is not. Consensus that will address this in version 2.
Personally, I prefer to bring this document back to section 4 and put their version 2 document into section 5.
Authorization document: SAML profile for an authorization service for a client to request authorization decisions. Have 3 or four implementations in the field working. Discussions that SAML was the right decision at this time, but further work will proceed with possibly an XACML authorization query interface as the basis. Tom, Frank: OGSI-oriented, need updates. Discussions on OGSA branding. Discussion with consensus to take current document to change OGSI references (Hiro: change name and re-submit to editor. Von will check with editor and re-submit). Also, create a new document with an OGSA (WSRF) specific version of it (Tom Maguire volunteers to help); part of charter of new extended OGSA-AuthZ WG. Next versions also follow OGSA. Discussions whether the authorization documents are specifications or profiles.
Given that OGSI is deprecated in favor of WSRF and WSN, I think their version 1 document should not be included in the OGSA roadmap. Instead, we should have version 2 description in section 5. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto David Snelling wrote:
Jem et al,
On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later version.
In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that it is not in the expected format.
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
Hi Hiro, Dave and Jem,
We have discussed how to update these two document at the August F2F meeting.
From the meeting minutes;
Attributes document give information background and defines profiles. Hiro proposed to use profile format. Only part of document is profile, and the rest is informational. Part that is a profile can be changed to OGSA format. Tom: still struggling with document structure in OGSA. Discussion if document can be divided in two, to make clear what is normative and what is not. Consensus that will address this in version 2.
Oh, Hiro, you have already addressed the consensus. Please forget about my previous mail.
Personally, I prefer to bring this document back to section 4 and put their version 2 document into section 5.
I think that it is an idea. By doing that, we don't need to make the document conform to the Profile Definition, do we? If nobody argued on it, I'm going to move the entry to section 4.
Authorization document: SAML profile for an authorization service for a client to request authorization decisions. Have 3 or four implementations in the field working. Discussions that SAML was the right decision at this time, but further work will proceed with possibly an XACML authorization query interface as the basis. Tom, Frank: OGSI-oriented, need updates. Discussions on OGSA branding. Discussion with consensus to take current document to change OGSI references (Hiro: change name and re-submit to editor. Von will check with editor and re-submit). Also, create a new document with an OGSA (WSRF) specific version of it (Tom Maguire volunteers to help); part of charter of new extended OGSA-AuthZ WG. Next versions also follow OGSA. Discussions whether the authorization documents are specifications or profiles.
Given that OGSI is deprecated in favor of WSRF and WSN, I think their version 1 document should not be included in the OGSA roadmap. Instead, we should have version 2 description in section 5.
I agree with you. Actually, I was wondering if it is good to put the entry there, although it still has a dependency on OGSI. I'm OK to remove it. Shall we add another entry for the future version of it in the Future Profiles section?
Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto
David Snelling wrote:
Jem et al,
On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later version.
In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that it is not in the expected format.
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
(Note that I'm not on the ogsa-wg mailing list -- please forward this note if needed) On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:09:56AM -0700, David Snelling wrote:
Jem et al,
On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later version.
The template idea is great, but it will mostly be the WG that "enforces" it -- from what I've heard so far, much of it won't apply to non-OGSA-WG documents. There are definitely some items that will apply much more broadly....for example, the discussion about how to allude to the trademark, and when to spell out OGSA versus using the acronym. These types of items would be great for another document, even a casual "howto" for the Editor tracker area rather than a formal document. This is something I could link in (here: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ggf-editor) & update as needed.
In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that it is not in the expected format.
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
You're talking about this document, right? A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0) https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548 The Public Comment tracker is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540 I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker. I must be missing something. There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before moving this to the next step. If the changes are substantial, we might want to run it through another public comment period. -- Greg
Hi Greg,
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
You're talking about this document, right?
A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0) https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548
The Public Comment tracker is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540
I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker. I must be missing something.
The comment is made against "Attributes used in OGSA Authorization" not "OGSA roadmap." You've pasted my comment here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/message.php?msg_id=1282 And actual comments are made in the uploaded word document; https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1485 You can find my comment on the first page: "OGSA-WG has OGSA profile definition document and OGSA WSRF Basic Profile as an example. I recommend to re-format this document based on the OGSA profile definition." At the August F2F meeting in Sunnyvale, OGSA-WG and OGSA-AuthZ-WG have agreed not to reformat this version. From the F2F meeting minutes;
Attributes document give information background and defines profiles. Hiro proposed to use profile format. Only part of document is profile, and the rest is informational. Part that is a profile can be changed to OGSA format. Tom: still struggling with document structure in OGSA. Discussion if document can be divided in two, to make clear what is normative and what is not. Consensus that will address this in version 2.
There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before moving this to the next step. If the changes are substantial, we might want to run it through another public comment period.
We think the changes are all minor and we don't need another public comment period. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Gregory Newby wrote:
(Note that I'm not on the ogsa-wg mailing list -- please forward this note if needed)
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:09:56AM -0700, David Snelling wrote:
Jem et al,
On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later version.
The template idea is great, but it will mostly be the WG that "enforces" it -- from what I've heard so far, much of it won't apply to non-OGSA-WG documents.
There are definitely some items that will apply much more broadly....for example, the discussion about how to allude to the trademark, and when to spell out OGSA versus using the acronym.
These types of items would be great for another document, even a casual "howto" for the Editor tracker area rather than a formal document. This is something I could link in (here: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ggf-editor) & update as needed.
In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that it is not in the expected format.
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
You're talking about this document, right?
A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0) https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548
The Public Comment tracker is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540
I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker. I must be missing something.
There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before moving this to the next step. If the changes are substantial, we might want to run it through another public comment period. -- Greg
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:21PM +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Hi Greg,
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
You're talking about this document, right?
A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0) https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548
The Public Comment tracker is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540
I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker. I must be missing something.
The comment is made against "Attributes used in OGSA Authorization" not "OGSA roadmap."
Got it - sorry for not realizing this.
You've pasted my comment here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/message.php?msg_id=1282
And actual comments are made in the uploaded word document; https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1485
You can find my comment on the first page: "OGSA-WG has OGSA profile definition document and OGSA WSRF Basic Profile as an example. I recommend to re-format this document based on the OGSA profile definition."
At the August F2F meeting in Sunnyvale, OGSA-WG and OGSA-AuthZ-WG have agreed not to reformat this version.
From the F2F meeting minutes;
Attributes document give information background and defines profiles. Hiro proposed to use profile format. Only part of document is profile, and the rest is informational. Part that is a profile can be changed to OGSA format. Tom: still struggling with document structure in OGSA. Discussion if document can be divided in two, to make clear what is normative and what is not. Consensus that will address this in version 2.
There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before moving this to the next step. If the changes are substantial, we might want to run it through another public comment period.
We think the changes are all minor and we don't need another public comment period.
Understood, and I put a note about this in the public comment tracker. However, this document still has another couple of days in the 60-day public comment period. It's scheduled for completion on September 22. At that time, I'll change the tracker status to alert the authors that their response (in the tracker, and/or via an updated document) is solicited. It's good to know the anticipated changes are minor. No, there should be no need for a further public comment period. (The GGF procedure seems to vary with the IETF's here: we think it's OK to have moderate changes after the public comment period, without requiring a further public comment period. The IETF seems to frown on such changes.) I'm not sure this note is responsive to your original question, so please send me a clue if I'm missing anything. -- Greg
Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto
Gregory Newby wrote:
(Note that I'm not on the ogsa-wg mailing list -- please forward this note if needed)
On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:09:56AM -0700, David Snelling wrote:
Jem et al,
On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later version.
The template idea is great, but it will mostly be the WG that "enforces" it -- from what I've heard so far, much of it won't apply to non-OGSA-WG documents.
There are definitely some items that will apply much more broadly....for example, the discussion about how to allude to the trademark, and when to spell out OGSA versus using the acronym.
These types of items would be great for another document, even a casual "howto" for the Editor tracker area rather than a formal document. This is something I could link in (here: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ggf-editor) & update as needed.
In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that it is not in the expected format.
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
You're talking about this document, right?
A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0) https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548
The Public Comment tracker is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540
I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker. I must be missing something.
There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before moving this to the next step. If the changes are substantial, we might want to run it through another public comment period. -- Greg
Forwarding an email from Greg Newby, our GGF Editor. ----- Hiro Kishimoto On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:09:56AM -0700, David Snelling wrote:
Jem et al,
On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later version.
The template idea is great, but it will mostly be the WG that "enforces" it -- from what I've heard so far, much of it won't apply to non-OGSA-WG documents. There are definitely some items that will apply much more broadly....for example, the discussion about how to allude to the trademark, and when to spell out OGSA versus using the acronym. These types of items would be great for another document, even a casual "howto" for the Editor tracker area rather than a formal document. This is something I could link in (here: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ggf-editor) & update as needed.
In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that it is not in the expected format.
I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
You're talking about this document, right? A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0) https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548 The Public Comment tracker is here: https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540 I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker. I must be missing something. There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before moving this to the next step. If the changes are substantial, we might want to run it through another public comment period. -- Greg
Hi Jem, I've made the following edits and uploaded version 20 to GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap... Please have a look. 1) Trademark section (page 1) I've delete "Open Grid Service Architecture" since only OGSA is our trademark at this moment. 2) Introduction (page 3) I've upload the first paragraph according to the agreement on the re-charter discussion on day five of August F2F. From the minutes;
* Why is the word "Open" used and defined in the charter? - Object to the statement "'Open' refers to ... and the standards themselves..." - OK to say that "Open" refers to the process. The say, the goal is to produce interoperability between implementations. - There is broad agreement to what we want to accept, we just need to agree on the text that describes it. * We probably need to take a look again at the Roadmap document.
3) OGSA Basic Security Profile Version 1.0 (page 23) We've already add two *basic* security profiles in section 5.2 and 5.3, this future profile should be renamed without "basic." Also, the roadmap has sections of OGSA-Authz-Attribute and OGSA-SAML Authz, I've replace explanation text by spec name and session number.
We can discuss this on Wednesday, but if anyone has info or wants to comment by mail, go ahead.
I'm afraid we have full agenda for this Wednesday. If time does not permit, let's discuss the roadmap on next Monday. Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Treadwell, Jem wrote:
Hi,
I've uploaded Roadmap v19, and the spreadsheet. This includes my own editing changes from recent calls, the public comment changes, and the changes that Tom & Takuya made. All the referenced-spec tables are dated September 1st.
I made some editing changes to Tom's text, and agreed it with Tom.
I've also made some editing changes to Takuya's text: Takuy, can you please check this and verify that it's OK - I want to be sure I didn't change the meaning of anything you said.
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition. I'm not sure if that's a change that the group is planning before publication - Takuya, do you know? Also should we be making conformance a criteria for inclusion in section 5?
We can discuss this on Wednesday, but if anyone has info or wants to comment by mail, go ahead.
Thanks - have a great weekend...
- 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@hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>
Hi all, Per Olegario's kind indication, I've Updated all fields (F9) in order to fix table number disorder. Revised draft (v21) is now on the GridForge. https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap... Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
Hi Jem,
I've made the following edits and uploaded version 20 to GridForge.
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa-roadmap...
Please have a look.
1) Trademark section (page 1) I've delete "Open Grid Service Architecture" since only OGSA is our trademark at this moment.
2) Introduction (page 3) I've upload the first paragraph according to the agreement on the re-charter discussion on day five of August F2F.
From the minutes;
* Why is the word "Open" used and defined in the charter? - Object to the statement "'Open' refers to ... and the standards themselves..." - OK to say that "Open" refers to the process. The say, the goal is to produce interoperability between implementations. - There is broad agreement to what we want to accept, we just need to agree on the text that describes it. * We probably need to take a look again at the Roadmap document.
3) OGSA Basic Security Profile Version 1.0 (page 23) We've already add two *basic* security profiles in section 5.2 and 5.3, this future profile should be renamed without "basic." Also, the roadmap has sections of OGSA-Authz-Attribute and OGSA-SAML Authz, I've replace explanation text by spec name and session number.
We can discuss this on Wednesday, but if anyone has info or wants to comment by mail, go ahead.
I'm afraid we have full agenda for this Wednesday. If time does not permit, let's discuss the roadmap on next Monday.
Thanks, ---- Hiro Kishimoto
Treadwell, Jem wrote:
Hi,
I've uploaded Roadmap v19, and the spreadsheet. This includes my own editing changes from recent calls, the public comment changes, and the changes that Tom & Takuya made. All the referenced-spec tables are dated September 1st.
I made some editing changes to Tom's text, and agreed it with Tom.
I've also made some editing changes to Takuya's text: Takuy, can you please check this and verify that it's OK - I want to be sure I didn't change the meaning of anything you said.
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition. I'm not sure if that's a change that the group is planning before publication - Takuya, do you know? Also should we be making conformance a criteria for inclusion in section 5?
We can discuss this on Wednesday, but if anyone has info or wants to comment by mail, go ahead.
Thanks - have a great weekend...
- 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@hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>
Hi Jem, I am sorry for my late response.
I've also made some editing changes to Takuya's text: Takuy, can you please check this and verify that it's OK - I want to be sure I didn't change the meaning of anything you said.
I checked your editing to find that it is perfect. It doesn't change any meaning. Thank you.
I'm not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition. I'm not sure if that's a change that the group is planning before publication - Takuya, do you know?
In the last F2F meeting at the bay area, I think the consensus is to submit the documents as is, and make them change to conform to the Profile Definition in the future versions. So, I don't think that they are changing the documents to conform to the Profile Definition before publication.
Also should we be making conformance a criteria for inclusion in section 5?
We can discuss this on Wednesday, but if anyone has info or wants to comment by mail, go ahead.
Thanks - have a great weekend...
- 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@hp.com <mailto:Jem.Treadwell@hp.com>
participants (5)
-
David Snelling -
Gregory Newby -
Hiro Kishimoto -
Takuya Mori -
Treadwell, Jem