OGSA Teleconference November 13, 2003 ===================================== * Participants Dave Berry (UK NeSc) Bill Horn (IBM) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Fred Maciel (Hitachi) Takuya Mori (NEC) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) David Snelling (Fujitsu) Ravi Subramaniam (Intel) Jem Treadwell (HP) Apologies: Jeffrin Von-Reich (HP), Frank Siebenlist (ANL), Andrew Grimshaw (UoV) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Summary of new actions Action: HK to post date decision for [F2F #6] on the list and give a last chance to people to raise objections. Action: RS to check availability (& internet connection) for Intel facility for [F2F #6] and let HK know asap. Action: TM to do a revision of the security summary for next week. Add dependencies between specifications, etc. Action: HK to send an email summarizing the CDDLM discussion to OGSA-WG list --- kick off discussion on what these terms mean. Action: AS to produce list of (empty) sections together with current owners, if they exist. Send to the list and solicit volunteers for empty sections. * Last week's minutes - approved * Agenda Bashing/AOB ** Postpone Security discussion - FS unavailable ** Postpone UC discussion - JVR unavailable Jeffrin Von-Reich has started pushing people to complete the UCs. ** Next teleconfs: Decided: - Teleconf next week (11/20) - NO teleconf the week after (11/27) * F2F ** [F2F #5] 2003 Dec meeting - Expect about 12 people. - Attendees should make sure they send their details in advance ASAP. See Ian Foster's email. *** Review agenda proposal Minor nit on dates (There are two Dec 4; change the second one to Dec 5.) - Agreed: Tackle ALL comments embedded in the document regardless of whether the person who inserted them attends or not. (Discussion of Jeff Nick's comments has been pending for too long.) - Is it just a review or do we generate any text? There are lots of empty sections. Agreed that it is mainly review; no large scale wordsmithing. Proposal to assign people to sections and get some text in advance. In particular there are many empty sections mainly under section 6. Review tracker #533 in this teleconf (further down) since we postponed the security discussion. ** [F2F #6] 2004 Jan/Feb (in CA) Decided on Feb 9, 10. Two full days (morning to evening) meetings. Location is CA but will not resolve further at this point. Waiting to hear whether the Intel facility is available. Action: HK to post date decision for [F2F #6] on the list and give a last chance for people to raise objections. Action: RS to check availability (& internet connection) for Intel facility for [F2F #6] and let HK know asap. ** Post F2F #6 Proposal: DB volunteered to host [F2F #7] in Edinburgh. Perhaps about a month after GGF10 (~April 2004). Proposal: HK volunteered to host a F2F (#8?) in Japan. So far, most US people have been saying they cannot make it due budget restrictions. * OGSA security discussion - TM sent draft to the list before the teleconf. - Quick walkthrough of document. (Some of the discussion captured below.) - Since FS couldn't make this teleconf we will re-visit this document next time. Q: Sec.5 table has lots of empty boxes. Are these really empty? TM: Not sure. Will check. Q: Dependencies between boxes(specifications). TM: Have not looked at it from that perspective yet. Will check. Q: Is there any overlap between work done in GGF and that done within the WS community? E.g., GRAAP is using WS-Policy but the IP status of WS-Policy is unclear. Have they secured any assurances that it will be made open? TM: Not sure if there is any assurance. Typically the approach is simply to try not to repeat work. (So if something turns out not to be open, address it then.) - DS: We don't have to write specs. Just to point out that we need them. If some part is needed but not on the horizon GGF could push for it by announcing that work will start on it. - DS: It is important to identify critical path; what we absolutely need. - Maybe SecureConversation is not needed? - RS: Not so sure. - TM: GSS-SecureConversation is implemented in GT3. - DS: That doesn't mean it is free. It may be the case that it's just ok to build prototypes. We are building an architecture. Action: TM to do a revision of the security summary for next week. Add dependencies between specifications, etc. * Documents delivery schedule ** OGSA document - HK sent out a proposal before the teleconf. Most people haven't had the time to look at it yet. - HK: There does not seem to be enough time between GGF10 & GGF11. - DS: Keep in mind that some editorial work by the GGF is needed before a draft can go out. (So there may be even less time than we think.) Agreed: Revisit schedule proposal during F2F as we may not get quorum during the teleconfs before that. (Discussing it on the list is also ok.) Also the security discussion was postponed for next week so there may not be enough time to cover both topics in one teleconf. *** List of empty sections in tracker 533 The following sections/topics have people assigned to them: - Deployment - Takashi Kojo (CDDLM co-chair) (issue #525) - Logging - Bill Horn (issue #492) The following sections are still being discussed in PE sessions. Wait until that discussion comes to a conclusion. - 6.20 Job Agreement Service - 6.21 Reservation Agreement Service - 6.22 Data Access Agreement Service - There is an empty section on Installation, Deployment & Provisioning. Since CDDLM is covering just Deployment should we split this up? Some discussion on the definition of provisioning and what each service/function involves. (Inside vs outside (bootstrapping) the grid environment etc.) - HK: Had a similar discussion during CDDLM BoF. The CDDLM take is that provisioning is built on top of deployment and CDDLM does deployment. Action: HK to send an email summarizing the CDDLM discussion to OGSA-WG list --- kick off discussion on what these terms mean. Action: AS to produce list of (empty) sections together with current owners, if they exist. Send to the list and solicit volunteers for empty sections.