[dmis-bof] FW: BOUNCE dmis-bof at ggf.org: Non-member submission from [Toshiyuki Nakata <nakata at mtg.biglobe.ne.jp>]
William E. Allcock
allcock at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Mar 15 10:51:53 CST 2006
Forwarding a bounced message.
------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:32:18 +0900
From: Toshiyuki Nakata <nakata at mtg.biglobe.ne.jp>
To: Hiro Kishimoto <hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: allcock at mcs.anl.gov, "'Robert B. Wood'" <Robert.B.Wood at Sun.COM>,
"'Michel Drescher'" <Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com>,
dmis-bof at ggf.org, graap-wg at gridforum.org
Subject: Re: [graap-wg] Re: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter
Hi: My name is Toshiyuki Nakata (or just Toshi) one of the members of
GRAAP-WG.
(Hiro: Thank you very much for the pointer)
The WS-Agreement Spec that had been submitted for review can be found in
http://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-AgreementSpecificat
ionDraft.doc/en/17
There is also a newer one ( which we're currently working on trying to
reflect all the valuable comments made during the Public Comments Period) in
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-AgreementSpecifica
tionDraft.doc/en
I can also send you some tutorial material that I together with
another group member made if you like.
Hope you find it useful.
Best Regards
Toshi
Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> Hi Bill,
>
> One more comment.
>
> Scope section says
>
>> This Working Group will define two Web Service interfaces. The first
>
> > interface deals with the agreement on a particular transport protocol
> > used for a data movement. The second interface defines the invocation
> > of the data movement itself, and the associated aspects of
> > reliability, transfer scheduling, granularity, performance settings,
> > control, and progress.
>
> Are you familiar with WS-Agreement specification by GRAAP-WG?
> Can you include investigation of applicability of WS-Agreement to
> your interface as an WG's activity?
>
> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
>
> 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-wsr
f-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
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
More information about the dmis-bof
mailing list