OGSA Teleconference October 30, 2003 ==================================== * Participants Dave Berry (UK NeSC) Ian Foster (ANL) Bill Horn (IBM) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Takuya Mori (NEC) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Frank Siebenlist (ANL) Dave Snelling (Fujitsu) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Jem Treadwell (HP) Von Welch (ANL) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Summary of Actions (see also inline for more context) - Action: DS,HK to talk with Jeff Nick and straighten things out on group's focus. - Action: Everyone should send their availability for second F2F to HK by Nov.6. - Action: RM to look into hosting the F2F at an Intel Sunnyvale facility. - Action: HK to email Dejan and ask for AA use cases. - Action: AS takes ogsa doc pen to check/accept JT's updates and pass pen on to DS by Sunday(10/30) midnight (UK time). - Action: HK to update excel sheet that summarized Jeff Nick's comments and put out on the list. - Action: DS will look at HK's excel sheet and work through some of the issues. - Action: Come back to the document relase schedule issue at the next teleconf. We also need to review what we promised the GFSC. * Last teleconference minutes - approved * Agenda bashing ** GFSC - GFSC is concerned that OGSA may be suffering from "mission-creep" CDDLM's charter was the trigger. Some confusion over whether PE(/Provisioning) telecons overlap with CDDLM's mission. Two points: - OGSA-WG defines big picture (architecture/services) but not the detailed stuff (interfaces). - CDDLM does not cover provisioning, just deployment. Action: DS,HK to talk with Jeff Nick and straighten things out on group's focus. * Interim F2F meeting plan and schedule ** December meeting - Fixed Date & Venue: Date: Dec.3(Wed) noon - Dec.5(Fri) noon Venue: Argonne National Laboratory ** January meeting - Tentative agreement for Date: Jan 26(Mon) morning - Jan 27(Tue) evening Venue: [California] Note: One motivation for the dates is their proximity to GlobusWorld 2004. (Convenient for people flying in from abroad for that event.) Proposed venues: - San Diego Supercomputing Center - Intel facility at Sunnyvale Rejected venues: - FJ@Sunnyvale facility: There is no network connection in the conference room. Agreed: Fix dates after we get everyone's availability. Don't fix location beyond [California] for now. Set a deadline 2 weeks from now (13 Nov.) to make decision. Action: Everyone should send their availability for second F2F to HK by Nov.6. - DS: Travelling during the 3 weeks before GlobusWorld 2004. Probably can't make this one. But probably couldn't make it anyway even if the dates were moved 1 week in either direction. Action: RM to look into hosting the F2F at an Intel Sunnyvale facility. * GGF9 Cross-WG session summary (cont.) ** Security (OGSA-SEC, OGSA-AuthZ) - Security discussion was carried over from last week's teleconf. - Questions raised last time: - Are there any holes between grid security and ws-security? - Probably, but not clear yet. - Is proxy based delegation included in the long term? *** Are there any holes between grid security and ws-security? - FS: Architecture is based on MS+IBM architecture. There are still many holes (not all specs have been submitted/made public). - HK: So those 2 companies control OGSA development? Not fair. - FS: We are proceeding with needed specs; e.g. authorization. But with some specs there is no alternative. - Authorization was chosen because it can be done. WS-authorization is an empty box and there is nothing on the horizon. Looked at existing stuff, e.g., SAML, XACML and decided that we can use them with some tweaking/filling in missing pieces; while offering feedback to the standards bodies defining them. - RS: Would be nice to extend the same model to other 'boxes' in the security roadmap. - VW: Authorization language relies on OGSI. It is SDE specific. Problem to solve was how do you apply SAML to grid services. - DS: Hopefully the wider community will look at this security work afterwards and think "that's a good idea, we should use that." (Like ogsi etc) - RS: Discomforting to be held slaves to external events. - FS: OGSA-SEC simply doesn't have the people. We need more security experts. *** Is proxy based delegation included in the long term? - FS: No. The desire is to move to finer grain model (SAML, WS-Security) of delegation assertions. *** How to get things move faster - DS: Look at what's in the security roadmap and prioritize. Two main building blocks WS-Security (in progress), XML-Signature. These are needed. Look at what we need next, e.g., to build globus, and push for it. For example one needed function is delegation. - Agreed: Look at things from the point of view of what OGSA-WG requires and push for updates in just those area. (E.g., Once we know what we want push off proposals to the GGF area directors about what we need and whether there is anyone working on it.) And maybe keep maybe some distance from (IBM+MS) WS-security roadmap. Allow for alternatives. DS: Even if we don't have everything as long as we have the basic stuff we can build something useful. Some things we have in mind (e.g., VO) may even be beyond what's planned in the roadmap. Some of the roadmap things we probably don't need. - Action: Choose a couple of people to look at the 2 OGSA-SEC documents - architecture doc (30 pages) - roadmap doc (20 pages) and summarize them. Give them 2 weeks to do it. Assigned to TM. - And once the summary is done review and decide what the next step for OGSA is. ** P2P APPAGG - Similar to OGSA-P2P but addresses small devices. - Is it just small footprint or is there anything else? - Do they have any requirements? - They are planning to submit use cases to OGSA. - Are they going to run applications? - Rejected: Wait for use cases and take a look. Lean the burden on their side. RS: Might be a good idea to consider those devices upfront. E.g., mobile devices have special requirements such as re-connect. - Agreed: Push them (gently) to give us their use cases sooner than later. - Action: HK to email Dejan and ask for AA use cases. ** GGF9 overall wrap up - Proposal: Set up channel for 2 way communication with each group we are interested in so that we make sure we are well coupled. E.g. have each liaison review relevant sections and drive stuff to the other group. - Ideally someone moderately active in ogsa and very active in their group. Some names that came up: - Frank for OGSA-SEC - Andreas for JSDL - Hiro for CDDLM Or if we can't find anyone then recruit from the target group. Offer ownership of relevant OGSA doc sections and/or put their name in a special appreciation section. - Action: HK to produce list of WGs from GGF9 session and ask for volunteers by next conf call. - RS volunteers for GRAAP. * Relation of CMM-WG and OGSA-WG (FM) - FM already sent emails to OGSA/CMM-WG lists. - Background: - CMM work was moved to WSDM - Focus on looking at the whole, finding gaps for mgmt. In a sense similar to what OGSA is doing but focusing on mgmt. - Unofficially coming back to OGSA as a subgroup. - HK: No. CMM is a GGF WG. We shouldn't talk about it as an OGSA subgroup. (Subgroups don't exist formally.) CMM is collaborating with OGSA. Keep separation clear. - Looking for more cross-talk between CMM & OGSA - Focus is now general mgmt aspect. - Also interesting to look at general models aspect. - Resource mgmt section volunteers: HK, RS - Proposal: CMM teleconf slot for Tuesday same time as OGSA thursday slot. - FM & RS to talk about it offline. * OGSA document status review ** Document updates - No one has taken the pen after JT released it. - Open document trackers: Mainly Jay Unger, IF, DS. - Also have comments in document (JT, IF, Jeff Nick). - Need to work through inline comments as well as trackers. - Action: AS takes ogsa doc pen to check/accept JT's updates and pass pen on to DS by Sunday(10/30) midnight (UK time). - Action: HK to update excel sheet that summarized Jeff Nick's comments and put out on the list. - Action: DS will look at HK's excel sheet and work through some of the issues. - Can people still access the doc when someone holds the pen? - Yes. There should be no problem downloading the document. - The lock is mainly a social mechanism. ** Schedule ** GGF10 target Revised, more complete version of the OGSA doc. ** OGSA doc release target - When should the OGSA doc be submitted to the recommendations process? - Rejected: Public comment period (60days) to finish at GGF11. - Rejected: Public comment period to start at GGF11. - Proposal: Public comment period to overlap GGF11. Get it out one month before GGF11 so that people have time to look at it. Present it at GGF11 & get people's comments. Update if necessary. Seems like a good idea to overlap with GGF. But timeline is problematic. We may need more time to get all involved groups on board. It's not to our advantage to put it out with too many holes. Major rewrites re-initialize the 60 day period (editor/GFSC decision). We should avoid this. - Action: Come back to the document relase schedule issue at the next teleconf. We also need to review what we promised the GFSC.