OGSA Basic Profile minutes: Wednesday, 04/13/05

Attendees:
Tom Maguire
Takuya Mori
Jem Treadwell
Latha Srinivasan
Steven Newhouse


1. Expected completion date for initial draft: April 20, 2005
2. Takuya's text on security stuff has been incorporated into version 10
3. Trackers:
   a. 1223: pending
   b. 1225: still more work needs to be done (see page 5)
   c. A new tracker has been opened to fill in text for BaseN and BaseFaults in section 1.1 (# 1360)
   d. New tracker for notational conventions in section 1.3 (#1361)
   e. 1321 : pending
4. Section 2 -- conformance targets now reference WS-I BP 1.1
5. Section 3.1.2 : Policy is no longer applicable in WS-Addressing EPR, we will remove this section (done)
   This is tracker 1362
6. Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 are complete
7. Section 4.2.1 has been completed to reference the appropriate spec. [WSRF-RP]
8. Issue: Should we move to 2005/03 namespace version of WSRF-RF specs? Answer: no. We stay with the previous 
   version (2004/11)
9.. Section 6.1 -- use of useNotify needs to be corrected
10. Section 4.4 -- tracker # 1258, we should tighten the link between prop. change notifications and implementation
of NotificationProducer operations and properties. 1258 : still pending. Some additional comments to be added.
11. Section 5.2: mostly done. Resource Destruction Notification: new tracker #: 1363 (pending)
12. Section 5.3: New tracker to remove this section. Sam Meder wanted it, but we are not sure how to implement
that. (tracker#: 1364 - done)
13. Section 6.1 BaseNotification refers to WSRF-Service Group (tracker #: 1365 - pending)
14. Section 6.1.1: A tracker for a message conformance requirement (# 1366) i.e should not contain useNotify. 
This section has been tightened up now.
15. Section 8.1.4: XML Signature sections updated to reference the correct sections in Basic Security Profile 1.0
16. Added a new section on requirements for keyInfo Exchange for Message Level Security - section 8.1.6. There's 
nothing in this section yet on Message Level Security
17. If a client is presented with an EPR with keyinfo in metadata, he has 2 choices:
a. he has some out of band knowledge of the keyinfo
b. he can't communicate with the sender
18. Takuya: We had a discussion about using ds:KeyInfo element at Argonne. A tracker (#1367) has been opened 
to understand the rationale for not using just the ds:KeyInfo element.
19. A new tracker needs to be opened up for Section 8.1.6 (more on the description). We need some additional
INSTANCE and MESSAGE target requirements. New trackers: # 1368 and 1369 (assigned to Takuya - pending)
20. Section 4.3.1: need a couple of additional requirements. XPATH1.0 does not define serialization at all.
We need a serialization structure to be defined. We need a mailing list discussion on the semantics of query.
There is nothing defined within QueryResourcePropertiesResponse. Tracker #: 1257 
21. New document will be posted right away. 
22. Jem: Is there going to be an interop around this? Answer: no has discussed it.. spending the money
to host it is probably the issue. Ask Dave Snelling / GFSG. At what point will folks have compliant 
implementations to use for the interop? Maybe not for a while. Any organization could volunteer to host it.
We need some tooling to go with the profile to help test interop and conformance mechanisms. 
It may be timely for GFSG.