[dmis-bof] Updated Charter
Alex Sim
asim at lbl.gov
Wed Mar 15 15:55:28 CST 2006
Can you use "for example" instead of "i.e." unless you want to tie up the
working group with the particular ones? In particular, these two places:
"Setting up a data movement includes the selection of a transport protocol,
i.e. GridFTP, and parameters for reliability, timing, scheduling, resource
usage, accounting, billing, etc. The Working Group will explore existing
mechanisms to reach such agreement, i.e. WS-Agreement [2] and use them where
appropriate. "
And this link in the charter
http://schemas.ggf.org/byteio/2005/10/transfer-mechanisms/simple is still
not reachable.
--Alex
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org [mailto:owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org]
| On Behalf Of William E. Allcock
| Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:59 AM
| To: 'Michel Drescher'; 'Hiro Kishimoto'; 'Allen Luniewski'
| 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>
| >
| >
|
More information about the dmis-bof
mailing list