[graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

[Philipp Wieder]

Dear All,

please find the updated version of the spec. at:
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-AgreementSpecificationDraft.doc/en/22

Further comments inline.

Philipp.

Jim Pruyne wrote:
> 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
Done.
>     - To Remove: SNAP
Done.
>     - Also to update to the proper link for various specs.
Done.

>   - 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.
Done.
>     - 2. Already has been addressed.  Philipp to double check.
Done.
>     - 3. Heiko to investigate status.
>     - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment.
Yes, that is correct.

I included some new references:
- WSDL
- XML Schema
- RFC2119

In addition, I marked some references within the document which, to my 
opinion, have to be used within the text or which have to be removed if 
not used at all. I suggest that people check whether this is necessary. 
This includes:
- ComputeJobs
- WS-BaseNotification
- XML-ns
This covers also "several comments", issue 7.

Furthermore I tried to bring the references into the right order 
(depending on their first appearance).