[graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

[Toshiyuki Nakata]

Apologies everyone for not showing up on this week's telecon.
(Had intended to but had dozed off....)

Please find attached the excel comments list which
1)At last includes all the comments within the comments period.
2)Tried to reflect the status of this week's telecon.
 
Best Regards
Toshi
-----
Toshiyuki Nakata 中田　登志之
Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 
1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, 
Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan 
Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035)
Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg at ggf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Philipp Wieder
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:31 AM
> To: graap-wg at gridforum.org
> Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> please find the updated version of the spec. at:
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-Agre
ementSpecificationDraft.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).
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublicComments060113.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 106496 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060113/8580d426/attachment.xls