[graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

[ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de]

Hi,

I will incorporate it updating the references.

Best regards, Philipp.

----- Original Message -----
From: Heiko Ludwig <hludwig at us.ibm.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

> In response to the comment
> 
>  - "several comments"; action item 3:
> 
> The XQueryX standard (XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)) became 
> a 
> candidate recommendation in November. The reference should be: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xqueryx/ Let's use this reference. 
> 
> 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. +1 646 675 8469
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne at hp.com> 
> Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
> 01/11/2006 11:03 AM
> 
> To
> GRAAP-WG <graap-wg at gridforum.org>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attached...
> 
> --- Jim
> 
> 
> Notes from Jan. 11 Teleconference
> ---------------------------------
> 
> 
> Attendees
> ---------
> 
> Wolfgang Ziegler
> Heiko Ludwig
> Asit Dan
> Jim Pruyne
> Philipp Wieder
> 
> 
> Agenda Items
> ------------
> 
> - GGF: No schedule has been posted yet.
>  * One session on spec. updates prior to GGF16
>  * Two more sessions of implementation presentations, continuing
>  discussions from presentations from previous GGF.
> 
> - OGSA F2F:
>  * Jim will plan to attend for a couple hours
>  * Will there be any feedback on the spec. through this?  Philipp:
>    perhaps not as they look only to consume based on last F2F.
> 
> - Wolfgang provided feedback to GGF Office on status of deliverables
>  as requested by Joel.
> 
> - Comments:
>  - Missing references: Philipp to do this in the next day, and
>    re-upload 
>    - To Remove: SNAP
>    - Also to update to the proper link for various specs.
> 
>  - Flexibility of WS-A. comment:
>    - 1. We don't think the current WS-Agreement prohibits what he's
>         suggesting, but we also don't define it.
>    - 2. Basically DoS attack concerns.  Agreed, that this might 
> be a
>         nice thing to be able to do, but we consider it outside the
>         scope of WS-Agreement.  Many of these issues are true for any
>         web service, and not specific to WS-Agreement, though how one
>         searches the possible agreement space is somewhat more
>         relevant.
>    - 3. We specifically restricted to 2 parties to avoid specific
>         remediation of multiple parties.  That is, who specifically
>        is at fault when there are more than two parties with specific
>        responsibilities to one another.  Therefore, we limit WS-
> Agreement        to two party.
>    - 4. Agreed that a library service is useful, but it is outside
>         the scope of WS-Agreement.  For signing, and 
> authentication, 
> other
>         general practices for web services should be applicable.
> 
>  - Discovery of compatible agreement parties
>    - There is some hint as to the valid languages in the template
>      based on the definition of namespaces.  That is, an initiator
>      should be sure that all namespaces declared in the template are
>      understood.  However, this seems like a good point, and the
>      suggestion seems valid.  Our current thinking is to consider
>      this in a next version based on some experience with the current
>      version.  It may be that some practice like this will emerge
>      which we could incorporate in a future version.  The reference
>      to a similar use in wsrp does help us to see a model that might
>      be used.
> 
>  - "sorry for the late post" to be addressed on future call due to
>    time constraints.
> 
>  - "several comments"
>    - 1. Version will come from reference, and as needed in the
>         specification name.  Philipp to update along with references.
>    - 2. Already has been addressed.  Philipp to double check.
>    - 3. Heiko to investigate status.
>    - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment.
> 
> 
>