[dmis-bof] Updated Charter

[Robert B. Wood]

In my opinion, "4th party data transfer" as a term such as described 
below offers more debate than value.  To my understanding, a 3rd party 
copy operation is a data transfer between two data stores that is 
initiated by [at least] one of the data stores or devices themselves, 
without the aid or instruction of the user or their server/application 
code.  It was originally coined in the realm of data backup.

When an agent of the user (including the user him or herself) initiates 
a data transfer and the data transfer path includes the user's system, 
that is a first party operation.  When an agent initiates a data 
transfer directly between two data stores or devices, without placing 
their server in the data stream, this is an extended data movement 
operation; what is referred to as extended copy or serverless backup in 
the data backup realm.

The usage of these terms is pretty well codified in the SCSI-3 
specification and implemented in storage products. 

I'm not suggesting that management of agents, like the "truly 
independent service" that Michel describes is trivial, in fact the data 
security aspects can be quite challenging.  Also the line between direct 
control and independent operations is pretty fuzzy, as data movements 
rarely occur without some user involvement, be it simply an exersize of 
a service level agreement with the data storage service provider[s].

Just a couple of comments to the comments to the comments ... Bob

Michel Drescher wrote:

> Bill,
>
> some comments, related to the comments you put in the charter document:
>
> 4th party data transfer:
> I see 3 different scenarios for data movement. Let's assume we have a  
> (data) source and a (data) destination. We also have a user that  
> wants data moved. If the user is the source, we have a direct pull  
> case, if the user is the destination, then we have a direct push  
> case. If the user tells the source to move some data to the  
> destination, then this is 3rd party push, if the user tells the  
> destination to get some data, then this is 3rd party pull.
> Well, if the user tells a truly independent service to initiate a  
> data transfer from source to target, then this is very similar to 3rd  
> party data transfer, but different enough as there is a 4th instance  
> participating in the data movement.
>
> Transport protocols:
> Yes I meant application level protocols from a network point of view,  
> such as GridFTP, HTTP, FTP, etc.
>
>
> Regarding the timeline:
> The short term planning is ambitious, but manageable, I think,  
> especially if we can appreciate broad contribution support.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> On 13 Mar 2006, at 22:41, William E. Allcock wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Michel and I have updated the charter based on discussions that  took 
>> place
>> at GGF16.  They are already scheduling slots for next GGF, so we  
>> need to
>> ratify this charter ASAP and become a full fledged working group.  The
>> charter is short, only a couple of pages of text and a table with  
>> goals and
>> timelines.  This shouldn't take long, so please take a few minutes  
>> now and
>> review this.
>>
>> In particular we would like comments on:
>>
>>  - Do you agree with the focus and scope
>>  - Do you think the Goals and timeline are reasonable?  Are we missing
>> anything?
>>  - Which documents / implementations would you be willing to work on?
>>
>> Thanks, and I hope to see you in Tokyo.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> William E. Allcock
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>> Bldg 221, Office B-139
>> 9700 South Cass Ave
>> Argonne, IL 60439-4844
>> Email:           allcock at mcs.anl.gov
>> Office Phone:    +1-630-252-7573
>> Office Fax:      +1-630-252-1997
>> Cell Phone:      +1-630-854-2842
>>
>> <charter-v3.doc>
>
>

-- 
Bob Wood
Network Storage Architecture Office
Sun Microsystems Inc.

303.395.3801 (x43011)
Robert.B.Wood at Sun.com