[dmis-bof] Updated Charter
William E. Allcock
allcock at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Mar 15 16:53:11 CST 2006
Ah, you are right. E.g. is the actual Latin abbreviation we should have had
there, not i.e., but if we are going to change it, I guess we can use
English rather than Latin :-).
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org [mailto:owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org]
> On Behalf Of Alex Sim
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 3:55 PM
> To: allcock at mcs.anl.gov; 'Michel Drescher'; 'Hiro Kishimoto';
> 'Allen Luniewski'
> Cc: dmis-bof at ggf.org
> Subject: RE: [dmis-bof] Updated Charter
>
> 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/simp
le 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