[dmis-bof] Updated Charter

[Alex Sim]

http://schemas.ggf.org/byteio/2005/10/transfer-mechanisms/simple is not
there.

Does DMI-WG try to have one common transfer protocol at the minimum on both
source and target sites?  If yes, why mandating one particular transfer
protocol, instead of discovering the transfer protocols that source and
target sites support, and matching (agreeing) the transfer protocols to move
data? 

--Alex

| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org [mailto:owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org] 
| On Behalf Of William E. Allcock
| Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 12:29 PM
| To: 'Robert B. Wood'; 'Michel Drescher'
| Cc: dmis-bof at ggf.org
| Subject: RE: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter
| 
| Ok, next iteration is attached.  We tried to address the 
| comments we had received so far.
| 
| Bill 
| 
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org 
| [mailto:owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org] On Behalf 
| > Of Robert B. Wood
| > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:07 AM
| > To: Michel Drescher
| > Cc: allcock at mcs.anl.gov; dmis-bof at ggf.org
| > Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter
| > 
| > 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
| > 
| > 
|