[graap-wg] minutes from telecons (Feb. 14 and Feb. 23)

Thu Feb 24 09:16:34 CST 2005

Toshi,

by discussing and resolving comment 8, we simultaneously addressed 
comments 31 and 32. Maybe we can just add a referral from those comments 
to the answer to comment 8.

Heiko

-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
hludwig at us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160,  mob. +1 646 236 9453
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/

Toshiyuki Nakata <t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com> 
Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
02/24/2005 02:31 AM
Please respond to
t-nakata

To
Jim Pruyne <pruyne at hpl.hp.com>
cc
GRAAP-WG <graap-wg at gridforum.org>
Subject
Re: [graap-wg] minutes from telecons (Feb. 14 and Feb. 23)

Comment List Updated.
Please note that the second issue we discussed today was Entry 10 and 
NOT entry 9.

Jim Pruyne wrote:

> All,
>
> Attached are minutes from the last two telecons, on the 14th and 23rd 
> of Feb. These deal almost entirely with handling comments we've 
> received. Please not all Actions captures (with ** in front of them), 
> and where ownership is explicit or implicit, update the entries in the 
> tracker related to the comment. That tracker is at:
>
> https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=461
>
> We will resume our usual Mon. call times starting next week which 
> would be 4:00 central time in the US. A reminder on that is hopefully 
> forthcoming.

Will it be from 4:00 Central or from 5:00 Central?

>
> --- Jim
>
Best Regards
Toshi

-- 
We have moved to a new Office!!
Toshiyuki Nakata ?????
Internet System Laboratories NEC 
t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com
1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, 
Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan 
Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60210)
Fax +81-44-431-7681 (NEC Internal 22-60219)

Comment-ID
Title
Posted By
Status
Resolution/Discussion
1
Changing Offers
Toshiyuki Nakata
Resolved
Treat the normative part as correct.
2
Minor comments & asynchronous operations[ Reply ]
Takuya Araki
On discussion
Discuss on the mailing-list.
(especially wrt . Having it in the protocol or having it in the bindings)
3
Semantics of related agreements ill-defined[ Reply ]
Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)
Resolved (14thFeb)
Related agreements agreed last weeks to be taken out, but some discussion 
was still going on.  Not enough further argument to
change this decision.  **Could be a primer issue as used in a service 
description term.
4
How do we know that terms are fulfilled?[ Reply ]
Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)
Resolved (15thFeb)
This seems to be outside the scope as it requires lots of further 
infrastructure. **Action: Add such information in the spec that says that 
enforcement is outside the scope.
5
Why is the termination time part of context?[ Reply ]
Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)
Resolved
Because the expiration time refers to the whole of Agreement. **Action: 
leave it in place, capture this discussion, add justifying statements to 
the document.
6
ZeroOrMore needed[ Reply ]
Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)
Resolved
Unless someone gives a clear Usecase of how this term is used, stick to 
the current proposal.
7
Specification too complex[ Reply ]
Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)
Resolved
Spec. doesn't require that entire thing be used in every example, so 
complexity can be removed in specific cases.  This can be more clearly 
stated.  **Action: Can also reply that actual number of structures is not 
all that large.
8
AgreementIsProvider attribute[ Reply ]
Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)
Resolved(23rd Feb)
 Wewill augment the guarantee terms with which party is obligated and the 
obligee for each guarantee by role (initiator or provider).  Alsoimplies a 
response to issue #32.  Now that obligation is specific,there's no need 
for the AgreementInitiatorIsServiceConsumer flag in the context.
9
Related Agreements and Brokers[ Reply ]
Heiko Ludwig (GGF12)
To Be Discussed

10
Referred Specs[ Reply ]
Komori Hitoshi
Being Discussed
We need to be explict about the state of the specs. that we refer 
to,including their version.  Be clear where these are public but not 
ratified by any standards body.  Update table on page 6 (section1.1.1). 
Remove the MAY be composed entries.  Add column where we areexplict about 
version that will be used.  (Revisit this at beginning of next week).
11
Three "nits"
Jon MacLaren
To Be Discussed

12
WS-Agreement spec - proposed refactoring
Jon MacLaren
To Be Discussed

13
Consistency of WSRF ResProp. based monitoring
Jon MacLaren
To Be Discussed

14
WS-Agreement dependent on less mature specs
Jon MacLaren
To Be Discussed
cf Entry 9
15
Use of WS-ResourceProperties
Jon MacLaren
To Be Discussed

16
Organisation of runtime monitoring material
Jon MacLaren
To Be Discussed

17
No XML snippets for Resource Properties in S8
Jon MacLaren
To Be Discussed

18
Inconsistent use of expiration / termination
Jon MacLaren
To Be Discussed

19
Figure 2
   Tiziana Ferrari
To Be Discussed

20
glossary and Figure 1
   Tiziana Ferrari
To Be Discussed

21
 comments about Section 7 (run time states)
   Tiziana Ferrari
To Be Discussed

22
definition of compliance in Section 6
   Tiziana Ferrari
To Be Discussed

23
 Language problem in Section 5.1.1
   Tiziana Ferrari
To Be Discussed

24
creation contraints and serv. lev. Objectives
   Tiziana Ferrari
To Be Discussed

25
 Occurance of AssessmentInterval in Comp.Type
Heiko Ludwig
To Be Discussed

26
 TerminalFault
   Tiziana Ferrari

27
Agreement name optional
  Mike Fisher

28
Consistent approach to Term Compositors
  Mike Fisher

29
Guarantee Terms
  Mike Fisher

30
Include base objective set for web services
Asit Dan

31
ServiceProvider/ServiceCustomer explicit
Heiko Ludwig

32
Obliged party attribute for terms
Heiko Ludwig

33
 Explain service reference use better
Heiko Ludwig

34
Refining scope of Guarantee Terms
Heiko Ludwig

35
Guarantee terms for best effort systems
Heiko Ludwig

36
Business Value Table
Heiko Ludwig

37

38

39

40

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20050224/237f79c0/attachment.html 