[dmis-bof] Updated Charter

Wed Mar 15 06:15:34 CST 2006

Hiro, Allen, all,

I took the pen on the charter again, and tried to incorporate your  
comments. I passed it to Bill for a brush and further work, so that  
there should be an updated charter soon.

Cheers,
Michel

On 15 Mar 2006, at 3:04, Hiro Kishimoto wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> Thank you very much for revising WG charter document.
> In general, it sounds good to me.
>
> The following is my comments;
>
> (1) Goals section
> Given that GFSG is now asking all WG/RG co-chairs to maintain web  
> based
> "Living Charter" (see attached OGSA-WG example), I recommend to
> organize goals section based on deliverable documents.
>
> Goals section has list of documents and each document has
> - title
> - abstract
> - type
> - milestones (date for first draft, public comment, publication)
>
> (2) transport document
> Goals section says this WG will create "transport document" but
> focus/purpose and scope sections don't mention this. Please
> explain what is transport document in these previous sections.
>
> (3) 7 Q&A document
> Please update and send out 7 Q&A document as well as charter.
> You need to provide both to your area director for WG approval.
>
> (4) reference
>
> "OGSA WSRF Basic Profile Rendering 1.0, GFD.59, T. Maguire, D.  
> Snelling,
>  Global Grid Forum, January 2006"
>
> should be
>
> "[OGSA WSRF BP] OGSA WSRF Basic Profile 1.0, Foster, I., Maguire, T.,
> and Snelling, D. Global Grid Forum, GWD-R, September 2005.
> http://www.ggf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/Oct-2005/draft-ggf- 
> ogsa-wsrf-basic-profile-v43.pdf"
>
> (5) Management issues
> I would add the following sentence to this section;
>
> The WG will have joint review discussion with the OGSA-WG and the  
> OGSA-D-WG before every milestone.
>
> (5) DMI
> The Desktop Management Interface (DMI) is rather well known in
> IT industry. Do you have any other alphabet soup (e.g. Interface
> of Data Movement: IDM).
>
> p.s.
> OGSA-WG will have interim F2F meeting in San Francisco Bay Area
> from April 4-7. If you want to have session at this F2F meeting
> please provide agenda and how long do you need.
>
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/ 
> 200604F2F_session
>
> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
>
> William E. Allcock wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> <Charter for OGSA-WG.pdf>