[dmis-bof] Updated Charter

Thu Mar 16 03:31:12 CST 2006

Hi all,

sorry for the confusion - it is all my fault with the confusion of  
"i.e." and "for example". Can somebody explain to me the difference?

Alan, the transfer mechanism "http://schemas.ggf.org/byteio/2005/10/ 
transfer-mechanisms/simple" is not a link - it is a name, constructed  
according to GFD.58, "Standardised Namespaces for XML infosets in  
GGF", http://www.ggf.org/documents/GFD.58.pdf (<--- this IS a link! ;-)

Cheers,
Michel

On 15 Mar 2006, at 22:53, William E. Allcock wrote:

> 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>
>> | >
>> | >
>> |
>>
>>
>