Minutes of GRAAP sessions at GGF16, Athens, February 15 Minutes by Philipp Wieder, complemented and edited by Wolfgang Ziegler #1 session 8:30 am ------------------ [for agenda details in slides on GridForge] + IPR, sign-up sheeet + agenda + group status + 2nd comment period, issues [Toshi, slides in GridForge: WS-Agreement Status060211] - 12 post with 92 issues addressed - straight-forward already solved - non straight-forward issues solved have been presented (no particular questions with respect to the issues from the audience) - 22 issues still remain (need approx. one month to solve these) + Candidate for common terms [Toshi] - JSDL as WS-Agreement service terms presented - Business Grid approach: Compose JSDL elements using WS-Agreement SDTs - JSDL does not include the concept of metric - Q: What about the CIM schema? - A: [Toshi] May be a candidate, this should be looked into. - Other candidate: Key Performance Indicator. - Q: Do the candidates go into the spec? - A: [Toshi]: No, it is for demos, interop. and OGSA profiles ("micro-specs"). - Short discussion on CIM, OGSA Information models, profiles, etc. No CIM schema yet, but there seems to be some ongoing work. - Q: What kind of monitoring tools are needed to monitor the WS-Agreement SLA? - A: [Toshi]: Implementation specifics are not yet covered by the spec. A: [Wolfgang]: Idea was to explain this in a primer, but this is not yet existing. - WS-Agreement implementations: Currently existing are 5 or 6. -> Report on implementation issues once the final spec is done are appreciated. - Q: [Toshi]: How to define candidates for common terms? A: [Wolfgang]: Telecon to solve this. + Next steps on WS-Agreement #2 session 10:30 am ------------------- [for agenda details see slides on GridForge] + Presentation of CATNETS [Michael Reinecke and Omer Rana, slides in GridForge: WS-A specified Service Selection for Grid Service Providers] + Presentation of VIOLA [Wolfgang, slides in GridForge: MetaSchedulingService WS-A Requirements GGF16] - Q: [ToShi]: Approach to negotiation? A: [Wolfgang]: Currently seperation between WS-Agreement and negotiation planned (negotiation will use changeable agreements but will not be part of the agreement). + Gathering requirements on Negotiation - Service provider should be capable of modifying the template. Auctions are a potential use case for that. - Discussion on flexibility of WS-Agreement: * Possible: function of constraints, potentially leading to an infinte number of possibilities * [Omar] Limit complexity to prevent WS-Agreement from getting unusable. * Q: [Toshi]: In VIOLA runtime set by the user? A: [Wolfgang]: Yes. * Q: SLA used for scheduling in business cases? What are the experiences in business oriented Grids? - No real answer to that. * Q: Would be intersting to know whether people have repositories of WS-Agreements templates? * Experience from AKOGRIMO: Service providers do not let the user specify all parameters, but offers certain levels of service (like gold, silver, ...) a user may specify. * [Omar] "For specialised users you do not need WS-Agreement." * [Toshi] A hierachy of WS-Agreements is possible (done in the Business Grid project). Implies to include all agreements into one big WS-Agreement. * [Summary of topics] (1) What about the kinds of constraint terms needed for negotiation? Does real (businees) use cases give us advice here? (2) How are relations between agreements handled (in terms of composition and handling by components)? (3) How long is a offer valid, what are the constraints depending on the domain? (4) Relation of reliability of services #3 session 1:30 pm ------------------ [for agenda details in slides on GridForge] + Additional term languages - Franco Travostino described the interest of network carriers in WS-Agreement for agreements between carriers e.g. when setting up paths ivolving several carriers or for the provision of premium service layers on top of of best effort layers Ipsphere is currently looking into the spec and will give comments to Franco by end of February. Franco will forward these to the group. Ipsphere has reserved some funding to work on WS-Agreement including the implementation. Nlnet is experimenting with WS-Agreement also. Another issue is co-allocation for redundancy allowing to create two totally separate channels with different providers - Q: How to monitor SLA? A: There are different tools but outside of the agreement. The agreement allows to define various types of penalties. - Q: [Franco] Is there a way to secure the agreement? A: [Wolfgang, Toshi] Currently not, the agreement is available as document pointed to by the EPR. There is a need for two sided authentification of the agreement, two signed copies in the hands of both parties, thus creating strong agreements - Q: Could WS-Security be used for Authentification? A: [Wolfgang] We need to look into this. - Q: An independent WS-Agreement server to test own client implementations for interoperability would be helpful. Could this service be provided from GRAAP? A: [Wolfgang] We will discuss this in the next telco. - [Wolfgang] A meeting/telco with IPspere should be planned Once we receive their comments. We will discuss this in the next GRAAP telco. - Q: [Stephen]: Are there people willing working on network terms? A: [Wolfgang]: VIOLA will do this for application related network terms. - Q: [Stephen]: People in the infrastructure are willing to help specifying/monitoring the network terms? A: [Franco]: Yes, the area is very much interested. Joint meetings may be of interest. - Q: [Stephen]: Is one call enough or does GRAAP needs design teams? A: [Wolfgang]: Outcome of OGSA F2F in January -> micro-specifications for different terms. If there are not enough people with know-how to work on it inside GRAAP, we will go to other groups for collaboration on terms. Currently: Network, Security - Requirements for WS-A 1.x * More specific term languages needed * Thinking about decoupling protocol, guarantee terms, domain- specific term languages. - Suggestion to use CIM as a common term as CIM seems to have the metric concept. - [Stephen] At least two independent and interoperable implementations of the complete spec needed to become a recommendation. This may be an extra motivation to split WS-A. - Q: [Franco]: Do we have interoperable implementations of WS-A at the moment? - A: [Wolfgang] In VIOLA we did not try yet. [Follow-up] It would be a good test to try different implementations with different terms. - Q: [Omer] Interoperability fests, testbeds? - A: [Stephen] There is an interop. BoF this evening. Input is needed. + Requirements for a protocol supporting co-allocation and reservation - Q: [Omer]: Status of Doc. "Requirements on protocols"? A: [Wolfgang]: Not yet started, review of GGF 15 presentations to be done, help welcome. Will be started within the next weeks. - Cancellation of agreements currently missing; penalties, cancellation policies, time of cancellation etc. have been discussed briefly. Conclusion: Cancellation of agreements is a requirement ! - [Act, Philipp] Contact Dean Kuo to get his input on that. - [Stephen] Observation that after job execution it may be of interest to monitor the satisfaction of an agreement. Not part of the agreement, but what happens if the agreement is violated? [NOTE (Philipp): I suggest to have a, at least, brief roadmap of all the different GRAAP activities (term laguages, changeable agreements, negotiation etc]