OGSA Teleconference - 20 April 2006 =================================== * Participants Susanne Balle (HP) Dave Berry (NeSC) Mathias Dalheimer (Fraunhofer) Marty Humphrey (UVa) Chris Jordan (SDSC) Hiro Kishimoto (Fujitsu) Mark Morgan (UVa) Duane Merrill (UVa) Andreas Savva (Fujitsu) Stuart Schaefer (Softricity) Chris Smith (Platform) David Snelling (Fujitsu) Jun Tatemura (NEC) Marvin Theimer (Microsoft) Jem Treadwell (HP) Glenn Wasson (UVa) Minutes: Andreas Savva * Summary of new actions Action: Marvin will re-format and update the use case document Action: Marvin will initiate mail dicsussions on the extension topics Action: Marvin to send the draft charter to the OGSA list for comments. (Final review will be at the BOF in Tokyo.) Action: Dave B will send out the scenarios written by the data team. Action: Marvin and Dave B to send out and continue the Data scenario discussion on the list * Review of existing actions [Only the actions that were updated are listed below.] - Andreas to update OGSA web site with new teleconference information. (DONE) - Jay/Jem/ to provide three examples of customers grid deployments/usages (without attribution/names) in two dimensions. (DONE) - Jun and Dejan will take this issue (with or without host name in JSDL document) back to the CDDLM-WG for discussion. (DONE) See CDDLM discussion in these minutes. - Webcast Participants: send bios and photo to Jem. - Jem will follow up with the panelists. - Marvin to send e-mail that explains concerns on compliance suite by GGF & EGA. Missing context for this action. Hiro and Marvin will talk about it offline to clarify what needs to be done. - Tom: to finalize OGSA WSRF BP 1.0 doc and make a final call - Andreas volunteered to pick up this action and update the document. * HPC profile discussion led by Marvin Theimer ** Close out the use cases. - No disagreements raised with base/common case classification. Therefore no major changes are required. - Document still needs to be reformated (GGF template) and also revised according to the April F2F discussion (e.g., add requirements). Action: Marvin will re-format and update the use case document ** Start discussing extension mechanisms. Marvin kicked off the discussion with a description of the 4 different types of extensions he envisages: - WSDL extension: adding additional wsdl operations to a spec. (e.g., extending the BES specification to include a migrate operation.) - State Diagram extension--- See email by Chris Smith to the Saga-WG http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/saga-rg/2006/02/msg00107.html - Extending the set of understood descriptions (Infoset extension) E.g., extending resource descriptions in JSDL to support new resource types. (comment: how it relates to CIM) - Factoring into composable micro-specs (for protocol composition and extension) Dave S noted that things can become very complicated since the various specs may also define optional features, e.g., optional elements in resource descriptions. Also we have to be sensitive to what each spec thinks is the proper way to extend it. (One example is JSDL and its relation to scheduling attributes; or notification subscription and whether it should be part of a jsdl document, or provided by a new extended operation). There is always 'tension' when making choices where to place things. Action: Marvin will initiate mail dicsussions on the extension topics ** As part of that, discuss how the Snelling/Foster ESI design might fit into things. Technical discussion was postponed. It was proposed that instead of having a separate discussion to join the discussion already started in the BES-WG. The ESI authors also plan to do all their discussions in the BES-WG. It was agreed that all people participating in the HPC profile discussion should be on the following lists: - OGSA, OGSA-BES, JSDL and (optionally) SAGA-WG ** Review WG charter draft The draft charter was sent to Hiro and to Marty Humphrey (proposed co-chair) for comments. Some changes have already been proposed. Discussed some parts of the charter: - WG might choose to do simple specs, if it identifies things that are needed. - Should it be in the Compute or Architecture area? Agreed that Compute is better. - Planning two documents - Use case: first draft (Apr), submission (Jul), publication (Sep) - Profile: first draft (aug), submission (Nov), publication (Mar) - It is important to converge on a (draft) spec by August. - Marvin expects that there will be some prototype implementations in autumn (accepting the risk of changes from first draft) - There will also probably be an interop exercise in November. - Marvin is trying to get as many existing groups (globus, condor, altair, platform, ...) as possible to join the effort. But it is not a prerequisite that every possible stakeholder in this area agrees to participate in this effort. - Use case document: Susanne volunteered to provide a section on an open source scheduler project. [missed name] Action: Marvin to send the draft charter to the OGSA list for comments. (Final review will be at the BOF in Tokyo.) ** Data services relation Dave Berry described the work the OGSA Data WG is doing in developing data scenarios (e.g., pipelining, and parameter sweep.) The Data team would like some input from EMS on how to do the job submission; and also what should the relation of their work to HPC profile be. - Discussing the parameter sweep scenario, Marvin agreed that there are different ways of doing it: by a higher level service or by extended job (jsdl) descriptions. It is not clear yet which way it is better. But initially a higher level service that submits individual, simple, jsdl documents seems better than coming up with complex job descriptions including definition of dependencies. (This might be a later step.) - Dave B also said that it may be time to start trying to thinking about what to do with workflow Should the data team contribute these scenarios to the HPC Profile work? - Marvin welcomes all feedback to the HPC Profile. Action: Dave B will send out the scenarios written by the data team. Action: Marvin and Dave B to send out and continue the Data scenario discussion on the list * CDDLM joint discussion Discussed 'lazy' issue: - It is up to the implementation of the (deployment) service what to do with properties, etc, marked 'lazy'. The implementation may choose to ignore any added values for properties marked as lazy. - It was clarified that a user may redefine the value of lazy to false and therefore pass in desired value. * Webcast update The webcast was announced and within the first day 85 people registered. This is half the capacity so places are filling in fast. Some members mentioned they had problems trying to use the HP webcase site from Macs (no activex). - Dave S is out of office on the webcast day and probably cannot make it. - It has not been possible to contact Tom Maguire. At the moment the panel looks likely to be made by Andrew Grimshaw, Jem Treadwell, Hiro Kishimoto, Chris Jordan, Jay Unger.