OGF22 OGSA-WG session. Tuesday, Feb 26. Participants: Andreas Savva David Snelling Hiro Kishimoto Andrew Grimshaw Steven Newhouse Donal Fellows Steven McGough Elen Stokes Vesso Novov Michele Drecher - on call Mark Morgan - on call A.Savva: Closing issues tracker tickets. A.Grimshaw: Application Deployment - experience with application deployment in GenesisII project. - the use of the jsdl:DataStaging element for staging executables and configuration files is inefficient/doesn't scale. - GenesisII solution uses a deployment description XML file. It defines the executable and configuration files needed which in most of the cases are just zipped archives. The solution covers most of the use cases which happened to be very simple download of zipped archives to the exec environment and unpacking them. - in the GenesisII solution, the service handling the deployment is separate from the executing BES - the reason was to keep BES simpler. However, some deployments take long time - there seems to be better to put the functionality back into the BES. - two major types of deployments are just zip/jar and binary file deployment. - based on GenesisII experience it is proposed to insert a deployment description inside the JSDL and let the BES handle the deployment. - the evaluation of CDDLM and some other similar depl. mechanisms, found them to be too complex. S.Newhouse: There is a possibly of BES specification becoming too complex and difficult to implement. D.Snelling: OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0 Interop Test. - detailed information of the test published on the WIKI. - participants - Genesis, UNICORE, Globus, USMT. - security out of scope for the test. - issues discovered during testing; the XML definition of the ogsa-bp:ResourcePropertyNames needs to be changed in the schema doc; ResourceUnknownFault raised fairly deep in the WS tooling and difficult to support above the underlying tooling. - next step is the completion of the experience document. **************************************************************************** OGF22 OGSA-WG Admin session. Tuesday, Feb 26. S.Newhouse: Overview of the current state of Networking/Web Infrustructe/Grid Middleware. There is seem to be a general trend for using something simpler than Grid Services - Cloud Computing(CC). - CC is a user oriented access layer to the Grid, a layer above the Grid service, focused on what users want to do, different clients for diff communities: browser based(Web 2.0), OS emulation, APIs available browser or OS. - the specification adoption process should be oriented more towards this access layer. Specific use cases are needed to drive the future development of the standardization process. A.Grimshaw: Overview of the state of Grid Specifications. - major use cases driving the standards development originated in the High Performance Computing and Data Federation. - the work done so far focused on the Resource layers, GridServices layer, but not as much on the Access Layer where such specs as SAGA are applied. - existing standards are at various stages of progress. Broadly grouped in Security, Infrastructure and Data Management. - there will be a matrix published on the WIKI correlating Standard Specifications and vendors/research groups that have implemented them and the state/level at which the implementation is supported(demo prototype, product roadmap, official product release etc). E.Stokes: DMTF-OGF Work Register state of affairs. Proposed Work Items: - virtualization - Use cases to feed DMTF work e.g. portals, aggregate virtualized resources, any server virtualization specific cases we can provide now, cloud computing use case? - model harmonization - relationship between OFG reference model and DMTF CIM model - identify/remove overlap - can we profile CIM model for ref model? Are there classes etc. from ref model that need to be inserted into CIM? - notes to OGF - use some form of existing grid-virtualizatioin WG as process to get virtualization work items done. H.Kishimoto: The cooperation between DMTF and OGF seems to be restricted at the marketing level, but seem to be missing once any technical detals need to be discussed and agreed upon. D.Snelling: There is a proposal for dropping the word OGSA from all WG names apart from the OGSA-WG. There seems to be a confusion about what OGSA and OGF are. There needs to be clarification that OGSA-WG addresses a very wide range of capabilities in the overall grid architecture but its scope is cover the work in every OGF working group. There is a lot of important activites taking place in OGF WG that are outside the scope of OGSA. - a clarification of the OGSA and OGSA-WG purpose and scope to be published on the WG gridforge page and submitted to marketing for distribution. H.Kishimoto: Overview of the strategies decided during London F2F - Continue meeting at regular OGF events - Continue telecon schedule - Reduce the interim meetings between OGFs - Focus implementation Strategic Direction - Spec adoption - High level, access layer. - OGSA WSRF interop - EMS v1.1 scenario - Info/data modeling - Security Profile & BSP 2.0 PC review S.Newhouse: There needs to be a review of the set of use cases that, so far, have defined the direction of the OGSA activities. There is a need for a new set of use cases to re-focus the future work of OGSA(and may be of the entire OGF organization). One idea would be to start regular F2F meetings at which a broader representation of the OGF WGs are invited to discuss the new directions(as discussed in during the session)