[graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

[Philipp Wieder]

Dear Toshi,

thank you for maintaining the list. Item 38 is also done, except for the
following references (see also my previous email):
- ComputeJobs
- WS-BaseNotification
- XML-ns
These are not used within the text yet, but I left them in case people
think that they should.

Best regards, Philipp.

Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
> 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).
>>