Meeting on 2/18/2004 

 Attendees: Dejan; Jun; Steve L, Stuart S.  Toft, P.,  David Bell.

Working Agenda:

Additional comments?

Use cases:

Dejan proposes retaining all 6 pieces, but wants to converge down analysis.

Wants for everyone to look at their contrib and eliminate overlap. Could we reorder them?

David is going to merge use cases. By starting with the first use case and show how successors differ. If there is anything specific to an individual scenario, it should be drawn out.

OGSA F2F discussion raised the question 'what services do we offer'? Sometimes it has been presented as Compilation, Deployment and lifecycle management. Dejan proposes that deployment is core. Lifecycle management overlaps w/ OGSA PE.

Stuart: difficult to do deployment without the means to describe what you are trying to do, and the means to configure components.

Dejan thinks that WSDM can handle GM configuration. We should only handle configuration for deployment.

Steve: thinks that live reconfiguration is something for management & not for CDDLM as it is too tied in with system management. But acknowledges that you cannot statically configure everything.

Jun: provisioning and reconfig should be required for OGSA in total, so it has to be implemented in the pieces, which means CDDLM will need it.

Dejan: points to CDDLM and Provisioning doc on the site. Base question: do we agree fundamentally with limiting to deployment.

Stuart: too much is unclear. We cannot hand off the language to WSDM.

Dejan clarifies -that live system management is the scope of WSDM.

Stuart: we need to look at the architecture and define the service interfaces, what it is that post messages and listens for things. By defining CDDLM we will be making requirements for WSDM, because the Job Manager will need to talk to the CDDLM system to find out what resources are needed for a job. Stuart is nervous that we havent started to evolve our integration with the rest of OGDA/WSRF/WSDM &c.

Dejan clarifies that we only offer one service 'deployment'. There is no compilation per se, just configuration, and lifecycle mgt is handed off.

Are there any disagreement with this?

steve; if we have to rely on something else for lifecycle management, we will be tightly coupled to something else in OGSA PE.

Dejan: to revise the foundation doc by drawing in the slide from p3 of "CDDLM vs Provisioning", clarify the core role of CDDLM as deployment.

Are there any other showstoppers?

Still some issues to do with bootstrapping that dejan will discuss w/ Steve.

Dejan asks if it is ready to ship to the editors. As a non-normative spec, it is pretty good. We need to specify the matching from this to the XML.

Stuart: more explicit examples. Need to tie in the language to uses, so that readers will get a sense of value. Wants the value of the language to be tangible, and for that binding to be in there.

issues: lifecycle management and reconfig, assertion language.

Jun to send out an email to the group with the issues.

Stuart: the two languages appear to parse down differently. Its OK to have constructs in one that is not in the other. But does an attribute map from a smartfrog attr -the implied semantics have to be the same, even if the syntax is different.

David: propose that an example should show how they are related. Likes the finite state diagram.

At the meeting. Andrew Grimshaw showed an object design for PE, 'deployment and provisioning' was one of the bubbles in the design. They view deployment is just 'installing', not configuring and running.

- Advance planning of the GGF10 attendance and CDDLM activities, approval of the agendas

- Various

Jun: opportunity to discuss w/ resouce management.

Steve: WS-RF: opportunity for discussion over beer.