[dmis-bof] Updated Charter
Allen Luniewski
luniew at almaden.ibm.com
Wed Mar 15 12:58:25 CST 2006
Bill,
Thanks for taking care of my concerns! From my perspective, I think that
the charter is just fine and we are nearing the "polishing the round ball"
stage, if we are not already there. So, I am agreeable to submitting this
charter to the area directors for consideration.
DMIS works just fine for me as a name.
Allen
"William E. Allcock" <allcock at mcs.anl.gov>
03/15/2006 05:59 AM
Please respond to
<allcock at mcs.anl.gov>
To
"'Michel Drescher'" <Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com>, "'Hiro Kishimoto'"
<hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com>, "'Allen Luniewski'"
<luniew at almaden.ibm.com>
cc
<dmis-bof at ggf.org>
Subject
RE: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter
I added the suggested Document goals, but also left the existing table as
I
think it gives more detailed info and will be better for tracking WG
progress in the short term.
It has been suggested that DMI is already a well known acronym and we
should
change it. The floor is open for suggestions. I know that this has
already
been panned because by definition we are doing standards, but I am going
to
again suggest Data Movement Interface Standardization (DMIS), because it
solves our overlapping acronym problem AND it is easy to say (dee-miss).
Other suggestions?
I have also attached my draft of the 7 questions.
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michel Drescher [mailto:Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:16 AM
> To: Hiro Kishimoto; Allen Luniewski
> Cc: William E. Allcock; dmis-bof at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter
>
> 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>
>
>
[attachment "DMIS GFSG Questions.doc" deleted by Allen
Luniewski/Almaden/IBM] [attachment "charter-v6.doc" deleted by Allen
Luniewski/Almaden/IBM]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dmis-bof/attachments/20060315/b1d721dd/attachment.htm
More information about the dmis-bof
mailing list