[dmis-bof] Comments on the charter?

[Peter Kunszt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michel Drescher [mailto:Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: 14 December 2005 17:25
> To: Peter Kunszt
> Cc: allcock at mcs.anl.gov; Hiro Kishimoto; dmis-bof at ggf.org; Ian Foster
> Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Comments on the charter?
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> On 14 Dec 2005, at 14:30, Peter Kunszt wrote:
> 
> > hi bill
> >
> > here it comes  - my dreaded comments ;-)
> >
> >>  - I changed the name to OGSA-DMI
> >
> > i don't like that. having my EGEE hat on, please consider that we 
> > cannot adapt and use OGSA in any of the near future (next year) as 
> > everything is set up for production pretty much now. there 
> is no time 
> > for us to migrate to OGSA quickly and to deploy and use it. 
> there are 
> > lots of question marks concerning especially the security 
> > infrastructure and how that will interoperate with classical 
> > transport-level security.
> 
> I have basically no objections to either approach - with an 
> inclination to OGSA/WSRF.
> So I propose here to adopt Hiro's suggestion and write an 
> abstract service description and provide at least one 
> rendering, i.e. a WS-I rendering. As I am inclined to OGSA, 
> I'd prefer a WSRF rendering, but we can provide two 
> renderings (WS-I and WSRF) if need be.
> 
> > so to recap: we would very much appreciate a pure WS-I interface 
> > standardization first, where we can talk cleanly about 
> interfaces and 
> > semantics and we would not clog our discussions about which 
> semantics 
> > of WSRF should be applied to what. we could focus on the transfer 
> > specs. then someone can take the spec and 'ogsafy' it.
> > so please consider to keep this just as DMIS-WG. (sorry 
> hiro - i have 
> > to be pragmatic here)
> 
> Peter, did you follow the Byte-IO and/or BES development? 
> Both WGs specified the abstract service description and 
> provided concrete renderings later. Worked out very well. So 
> again, I'd propose this path due to good experience.

hi michel,

yes, i guess i just wanted to make a strong point here ;-)
we do the same in GSM-WG, so of course keeping in mind that
there is strong interest in WS-I as well ;-)

[..]

> >>  - A sort of pet project of mine is monitoring /
> >> troubleshooting.  I would like to potentially include
> >> elements in the WSDL or state that is exposed that would
> >> enable better/easier monitoring and troubleshooting.  For
> >> instance, some sort of unique job identifier that can be
> >> passed down to children, so that you can trace the chain back
> >> when you have a failure.
> >
> > yes, statistics gathering is another one. very important to have -
> > i already sent the wsdl's we have today to this list..
> 
> Shame on me, but I didn't check these WSDL's. Are they sort of  
> compatible to a usage like RUS-WS's output?

shame on me too - i don't know about RUS-WS.. do you have a reference i can look at?

cheers
peter
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2779 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dmis-bof/attachments/20051214/fe78ef8e/attachment.bin