[dmis-bof] Updated Charter

Thu Mar 16 06:06:04 CST 2006

Hi again,

thanks to Neil, I now seem to understand that difference. Hence a new  
iteration of the charter document.

I attached both the charter and the seven questions even though only  
the charter has changed.

Cheers,
Michel

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: charter-v7.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 116736 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dmis-bof/attachments/20060316/7821c066/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DMIS GFSG Questions.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/dmis-bof/attachments/20060316/7821c066/attachment-0001.obj 
-------------- next part --------------

On 16 Mar 2006, at 9:31, Michel Drescher wrote:

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