[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts"

Hi Savas,

GFD.59 "OGSA profile definition" prescribes not only "OASIS standard"
but also "OASIS TC Committee Drafts" can be referenced from
Recommended Profile at the Proposed Recommendation stage of
publication.

However, OGSA-WG agreed to wait for WSRF specs become "OASIS standards"
since it is expected to happen at latest end of March.

Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Savas Parastatidis wrote: 
I am not familiar with GFD-I.59. From your description, is it right to
assume that even the WS-RF-based profile is going to be informational
given that WS-RF and related specs were not standards at the time the
work on the profile started?

--
Savas Parastatidis
http://savas.parastatidis.name



-----Original Message-----
From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:11 PM
To: Maguire_Tom@xxxxxxx
Cc: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-wg@xxxxxxx; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey;
humphrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design
efforts"

Hi Tom,

You are absolutely right. If the upcoming HPC profile refers to non-
standard spec(s), it should be categorized as "informational."
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Maguire_Tom@xxxxxxx wrote:

I appreciate and agree with the perspective that suggests that OGSA
functionality be profiled using existing agreed upon specifications.
Are you suggesting WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation, and
WS-ReliableMessaging as those common, agreed upon, non-controversial
specifications?  Some of these are at Standard (WS-Security), some


are

at committee draft (WS-ReliableMessaging) and some of them are at
editor drafts (WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation).  The GGF guidelines
for OGSA Profile Definition (GFD-I.59) would require that a profile
based on these specifications be classified as an Informational
Profile (given the current state of the specifications).  Further I
would like to point out that the normative thorn in the side here


continues to be WS-Policy.


Thanks,
Tom

Mobile: +1-845-729-4806





________________________________

From: owner-ogsa-wg@xxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@xxxxxxx] On 

Behalf

Of Marvin Theimer
	Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:45 AM
	To: ogsa-wg@xxxxxxx
	Cc: Marvin Theimer; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; Marty


Humphrey;

gcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	Subject: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design
efforts"



Enclosed is a paper that advocates an additional set of 

activities

that the authors believe that the OGSA working groups should engage
in.



Broadly speaking, the OGSA and related working groups are 

already

doing a bunch of important things:

	*         There is broad exploration of the big picture,
including enumeration of use cases, taxonomy of areas,


identification

of research issues, etc.

	*         There is work going on in each of the horizontal areas
that have been identified, such as EMS, data services, etc.

	*         There is working going around individual
specifications, such as BES, JSDL, etc.



	Given that individual specifications are beginning to come to
fruition, the authors believe it is time to also start defining
"vertical profiles" that precisely describe how groups of individual
specifications should be employed to implement specific use cases in
an interoperable manner.  The authors also believe that the process


of

defining these profiles offers an opportunity to "close the design 

loop"

by relating the various on-going protocol and standards efforts back
to the use cases in a very concrete manner.  This provides an
end-to-end setting in which to identify holes and issues that might
require additional protocols and/or (incremental) changes to


existing

protocols.

The paper introduces both the general notion of doing focused 

vertical

"design efforts" and then focuses on a specific vertical design
effort, namely a minimal HPC design.



	The paper derives a specific HPC design in a "first principles"
manner since the authors believe that this increases the chances of
identifying issues.  As a consequence, existing specifications and


the

activities of existing working groups are not mentioned and this 

paper

is not an attempt to actually define a specifications profile. 

Also,

the absence of references to existing work is not meant to imply 

that

such work is in any way irrelevant or inappropriate. The paper 

should

be viewed as a first abstract attempt to propose a new kind of
activity within OGSA.  The expectation is that future open


discussions

and publications will explore the concrete details of such a 

proposal.



This paper was recently sent to a few key individuals in order 

to

get

feedback from them before submitting it to the wider GGF community.
Unfortunately that process took longer than intended and some


members

of the community may have already seen a copy of the paper without
knowing the context within it was written.  This email should
hopefully dispel any misconceptions that may have occurred.



	For those people who will be around on for the F2F meetings on
Friday, Marvin Theimer will be giving a talk on the contents of this
paper at a time and place to be announced.



	Marvin Theimer, Savas Parastatidis, Tony Hey, Marty Humphrey,
Geoffrey Fox