Minutes GRAAP-WG OGF 28 March 15 - 19, 2010 Munich, DE Note taker: Philipp Wieder Session #1 ---------- - IPR - General content, please refer to slides. - WS-Agreement V1.0 'polishing' + All things which came up after submission of GFD.107 are typos and alike, except for one issue. + Errata document has been edited during the session and uploaded to GridForge. + (Action, Wolfgang/Philipp): Check trackers and close those solved. Check tracker #6325. + Slide 21, first issues: this is not an error, but a feature request. + Slide 21, second issue: agreement, that this is an error which has to be corrected. It might effect compatibility, although it is not quite clear whether in a way which would imply a new public comment period and therefore a new standard. + (Action, Dominic): Describe the error and the case around it to pass it to the GFSG. - Advance reservation micro spec. + Status: 10 pages, more or less ready. + There was a request to capture reservations like "every day at 9 pm", but the group things that this is not necessary. + OASIS group tackles the problem much broader, but it may take some time before there is something to use. + Will become a Proposed Recommendation. + Next steps: Dominic will send the final draft to Wolfgang, who will send it to the GRAAP list. There will be a week for comments before the draft is sent to the OGF editor. - Micro spec. for licenses will be discussed at OGF 29 again. Session #2 ---------- - IPR - General content, please refer to slides. - Results from last session presented. - Presentation of WS-Agreement Negotiation draft + Clarification of relation between negotiation protocol and current WS-Agreement spec. + Discussion on use cases (not) covered. No decisions made re. what goes in to the spec. in terms of uses cases, but need for use case collection identified. --> Decision to put use cases into the annex. + Decision re. presented state diagram: Move "accepted" to "acceptable" state. + Q (Sebastian): Why do we need a state machine for the offer process? - A (Oliver): E.g. to jump back to a certain offer at some point in time. - (Sebastian): It has be made sure that the state between the parties is synchronized. - (Oliver) clarifies the state machine. The state transition has to be signaled. + Should the "Converging negotiation and constraint annotations" go into the negotiation spec or not? - (Sebastian) There are some generic assertions which make sense, like "this price or a higher one". Identified 5 to 6 constraint rules for this purpose. --> Oliver and Sebastian will discuss this offline. + WS-Agreement spec does intentionally not cover use cases like co-allocation. This is for other specifications or profiles to cover. Session #3 ---------- - IPR - General content, please refer to slides. - Continuation of negotiation discussion. - Use cases for negotiation: + Advance reservation + co-allocation + Symmetric agent communication + Plain negotiation --> At least high-level descriptions plus sequence diagrams should go into the annex. --> Put at the end of the spec and refer to it in the beginning - Converging negotiation and constraint annotations + Additional element in negotiation constraints and example in the annex based on Sebastian's suggestion - Discussion about adding a "binding" element to the acceptable offer + (Ramin) Use case: "Negotiate without any binding with a number of providers, and at some point in time the user wants to say 'Now this is binding'". + Ongoing discussions ... + Potential Solution: Profile advance reservation directly for people who need it, but do not change the current spec. Suggestion (Oliver): Describe it in the state section. Suggestion (Dominic): Put an additional section into the Appendix. Decision: Add section to spec. to cover binding negotiations, describe one specific way to do AR. - More on WS-Agreement Version 1.0 errata: + p. 30: TemplateId versus name: Remove "a specific version of" at the TemplateID description; Remove "having the same name attribute" + p. 16: Description TemplateId: Replace version with identifier.