OGSA Telecon (7 Sept. 2005) Attendees -------------- Mark Morgan (Minutes) Jem Treadwell (Minutes) Tom Maguire Fred Maciel Hiro Kishimoto Andrew Grimshaw Steven Newhouse Ellen Stokes Dejan Milojici Jim Pruyne Stewart Schafer Takuya Mori Mike Behrens Ravi Subramanium Jay Unger Pete Ziu * Telecon minutes approval (Oct. 31) -- approved without modification * Winter F2F Meeting in California - Jan 16th is the day - San Francisco area - ACTION: Hiro asking Fujitsu for meeting room avail. -- Hitachi might be an option if Fujitsu isn't an option * WSRF Basic Profile - New Trademark on OGSA in the trademark section - At this moment, OGSA is trademark, not "Open Grid Services Architecture" -- ACTION: Tom to change this--DONE -- Hiro to submit - Line 455 has misspelling. ACTION: Tom to fix.--DONE--Hiro to submit - Line 464 Another misspelling: ACTION Hiro to submit - Next monday we'll review Takuya's basic security channel profile - GGF Editor asked our profile def. into public comment review -- not yet shown in web page, but very soon it will start for profile defn. * Fred asked to move info model discussion into week of 26th. OK to move info modelling into the 26th or 28th? - DONE * How is the schedule for the OGSA 1.5 exactly? - Ready before or just after GGF 15 * Announcement: Tom Maguire has left IBM; is now at EMC. WRT Co-chairship, no changes expected - Interested implications for BES and Naming regarding conference calling numbers * Do we need to do anything on the roadmap in terms of AuthZ? - Hiro asked to put this at end of this call. * Agenda Bashing * EMS Discussion * Other Topics * EMS - GRAAP and WS-Agreement (in context of EMS, but further reaching than that) - Going through slides on WS-Agreement (Jim Pruyne presenting) - Is it possible to use WSRF Basic Profile? -- Probably not -- WSRF Basic Profile is too broad. - Agreement no longer has negotiation -- it's all or nothing - What about living up to the intention of the agreement. What is the relationship between consumer and initiator regarding this intention of agreement -- Any responsibilities with respect to the agreement are only between the initiator and responder. If the responder and the provider are not the same, and the provider is behind the responder, then there should be another agreement under the covers between those two. - Agreement will possibly be a service, but need not be one - A Name could be an EPR - Anything that becomes domain specific is out of scope - How does a potential Agreement initiator find a template -- Responder publishes them as resource properties - Versioning to be handled in name field if at all. Not really part of Agreement - JEM TAKING NOTES: - Bandwidth example: Could broker make a reservation and then make sub-agreements with other consumers? Yes - those are the types of agreements we've had in mind all along. - Agreement used as a token? Or stays resident with the responder? Show to other referenced parties? Jim: Might be able to, but not covered in spec - considered briefly, but not required. - Hiro: What timeframe for interop?? Jim: not sure, had a good session in GGF14, need to see how long it will take to do implementations - better idea after GGF15. Job execution is a common denominator for implementations. - Ravi - Dejan have any ideas for scenarios? Dejan: recommend take a look at the scenarios in the CDDLM foundation doc. Not really prepared for this today. - Jim: How to follow up? Andrew: once we have basic BES we should see how we might layer a reservable execution service on top of it, using WS-Agreement. Steven: Yes, but we're quite a way from BES completion yet. - Ravi: Composable - would it apply to a spec? Andrew: not sure that it would be in a spec; might be in a profile. Ravi: agree - might want to compose CDDLM/BES/Agreement. - Hiro: We had an execution profile discussion at GGF13, but too immature - GGF15 would be a good time to restart. Ravi: how to represent agreements - use template in some fashion... what role would EPS (Execution Planning Services) play? Might be able to give some feedback to GRAAP, and they might be able to give some advice. Jim: We'd be happy to do that - wouldn't want to make too many changes to current rev. - Jay: WS-Agreement provides a reasonable general framework - may be some tweaks needed - POC is for people to start using as-is - things we could do to flesh out - probably things we could do to enhance - in the absence of the framework people have found other ways to do it. Jim: In the attempt to provide a generalize ruled some things out of scope. Ravi: want to go through the process of seeing what hoops we need to jump through to make ws-ag work. What do we need to do to make it work in the EMS framework? - Jay: good early discussion; should have an in-depth discussion with GRAAP people. e.g. nothing prevents a template from being passed around among services prior to completing the agreement. - Jim: willing to be a regular telecon participant with OGSA and other W/G's or design teams who would like to discuss (e.g. Data). - Hiro to send out URL for scenario info. - Ravi: Back to CDDLM discussion - Dejan - 6 scenarios in Foundation that EMS might want to look at. Also a picture that shows order of deployment and reservation. I believe we need someone responsible for driving. Ravi will take on responsibility. Hiro proposes another call with CDDLM & OGSA - next Wed, 9/16? Need an agenda - discuss on mailing list; Ravi will collect open items. Stuart will start a mail thread; everyone should review them before the meeting. RAVI's NOTES: ============ Hi, Here is a synopsis of the agreed next steps from today's OGSA telephone meeting. Attendees, please review and update as required. GRAAP: Jim: Thanks again for the introduction to WS-Agreement today. We appreciate your taking time to engage. I would like to reiterate the couple of areas of focus we had discussed at the F2F: a. Understand the domain terms that may apply in agreements in a specific EMS scenario (BES?) b. Look at how one might apply WS-Agreement to the multi-entity (for a single operation) scenario that is EMS. (Cluster girds have a single entity (scheduler?) to handle all resources and requests and so that could fit the two party model of WS-Agreement but I was thinking of EMS outside of this space where responsibility is distributed). CDDLM: Dejan/Stuart: Thanks for attending this session. Sorry for any mixup here. I hope you did get something useful from Jim's presentation. Based on our discussions around CDDLM, here is what I captured: a. Hiro will send out the pointers to the interaction of EMS services for the 3 scenarios that was developed at the last OGSA F2F. b. Stuart will take a look and see how the CDDLM architecture would address these scenarios and start and email thread in the OGSA mail list. c. Ravi would collect any difficult or long drawn discussion topics (as suggested by the respondents) as agenda items for discussion at the next OGSA telecom. d. The OGSA WG will study the high level scenarios from CDDLM that were the model for the CDDLM specs. Need to reconcile these into the EMS/OGSA space. We will *not* have a parallel small team meeting this week but will schedule over the longer term (beyond GGF15) to do so as an ongoing activity as we work to resolve the approaches. Speaking for myself right now: I would suggest that an output of this activity be the OGSA EMS diagram fleshed out with the provisioning services from CDDLM (this could be either a blowing up of the provisioning box or a refactoring that may be dictated by this joint activity). Thoughts? OGSA: Anyone on the call today, please let me know if I have missed any of the outcomes of the discussion here. Any other suggestions and topics for discussions and/or focus with CDDLM and GRAAP are welcome. Thanks! Ravi