[graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

[Toshiyuki Nakata]

Dear Philipp:
Thank you very much for checking.
Updated the list as attached.
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: Philipp Wieder [mailto:ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de] 
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:08 PM
> To: Toshiyuki Nakata
> Cc: graap-wg at gridforum.org
> Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
> 
> 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).
> >>
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublicComments060113rev1.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 107008 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060113/4a5a2d8e/attachment.xls