[graap-wg] Telecon on 3/21

[Karl Czajkowski]

On Mar 21, Jon MacLaren loaded a tape reading:
...
> A strawman interface was presented, but this was (I felt) little more 
> than "these are the things that BES should support".  Pre-conceived is 
> a little harsh - everything presented can be changed.
> 

Well, I didn't mean it with the negative connotation you are
reading... I guess I should have chosen a better adjective.  I meant
that the only real consensus I have heard so far seems to center on
some very traditional rendering.  I am slowly learning to be
conservative in assuming there is agreement where it hasn't been
explicitly recognized. :-)

I think this traditionalist approach relates directly to the
aggressive schedule, and is not necessarily a bad thing for a starting
point.  However, to get everyone interested in BES to work through and
understand the WS-Agreement rendering well enough to accept or reject
it would put the remaining BES activity on a pace that I have yet to
see happen in GGF!

I'm just trying to share my view on it to set expectations in
GRAAP... we need to make sure we get WS-Agreement right and on the
next editing cycle; focusing too much on BES when things are this
uncertain may not be productive in bringing WS-Agreement to
closure.

(I would love to see it adopted for BES, but I would not be willing to
put that on the critical path unless BES is willing to delay its
milestones if necessary.  If their schedules are really so tight,
having a "BES 2.0" that uses WS-Agreement might be wiser.)


> >  3) There was a bit of the lingering anti-wsrf sentiment floating
> >     around Seoul.
> 
> There has been some excellent discussion on the OGSA-WG list just prior 
> to this meeting on whether or not WS-RF is necessary, and if it is, 
> what is it necessary for?  But to be fair, it's not "sentiment" - there 
> are some very astute people saying that the Grid community doesn't need 
> WS-RF.  Unfortunately, in Seoul, there was practically no debate on 
> this subject (at least, not inside of the WG sessions!).  I would 
> expect to see this being played out in the OGSA-BES list.  It's a 
> debate that needs to happen.

Well, I would hope BES only considers its applicability to job
submission/management!  If there needs to be a larger architectural
debate like whether "the Grid community [needs] WS-RF", it needs to
happen in a broader context.  I only brought it up because
WS-Agreement is obviously WSRF-based, so in order to adopt
WS-Agreement soon, the BES group would have to agree on the underlying
technologies almost immediately.


> 
> Jon.


karl

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com