[GRAAP-WG] Modification to the wiki Page on Renegotiating an established Agreement

[Toshiyuki Nakata]

Hi Dominic:
> So, yes, there are problems but it looks like a lot of people want to
> have this extra commit message. Are there any written records on the
> pros and cons of having the 2PC?

I think this info. is very important.
Unfortunately, I am not able to address this issue.

Karl or others, please respond..
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: Dominic Battre [mailto:mailinglists at battre.de] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 10:09 PM
> To: Toshiyuki Nakata
> Cc: 'GRAAP-WG'
> Subject: Re: [GRAAP-WG] Modification to the wiki Page on 
> Renegotiating an established Agreement
> 
> Hi Toshi,
> 
> >> For that reason I mentioned the "superseded by" 
> information that could
> >> be added to the context. A third party might need to check 
> whether the
> >> SLA is superseded by another SLA periodically. Kind of ugly...
> > 
> > I see. I had been wondering what you meant by "superseded by"..
> > It might be necessary to have a Notification sent to all 
> the bodies using
> > the old EPR...
> 
> Either that or to forward all requests transparently in the Agreement
> webservice. (i.e. if a message is sent to the old agreement it is
> automatically forwarded and answered to/by the new agreement).
> 
> In case of the notification, we have again the problem that 
> the delay of
> delivering the notification means that some parties are unaware of the
> new state for some time.
> 
> 
> >> AI ------ 1. please change SLA like this ------> AR
> >>                                 2. AR decides that it can 
> change SLA
> >>                                 3. AR calculates price of 
> modification
> >>    <----------- 4. new offer ------------------
> >> 5. AI decides whether change is worth the price
> >>    --------- 6. confirmation/rejection --------->
> >>
> > 
> > I agree that this is more beautiful.
> > OTOH I think that this raises the issue related to two 
> phase commit protocol
> > that had been discussed
> > for a long time and in a heated manner by quite a number of 
> people (before
> > my time actually) 
> > and finally got rejected in the original WS-Agreement protocol.
> > 
> > I  am a bit afraid of waking the sleeping monster, but I 
> welcome people's
> > comments..
> 
> Yes, I remember the discussion in Leeds. But on the other hand:
> 
> "A WS-AGREEMENT BASED RESOURCE NEGOTIATION FRAMEWORK FOR 
> MOBILE AGENTS"
> by D.G.A. Mobach, B.J. Overeinder, and F.M.T. Brazier introduced the
> additional commit and argues why it is important.
> 
> Oliver's WSAG4J has a commit message in the NegotiationAgreement
> interface (I don't know whether it is required or whether it is
> implemented for some historic reasons).
> 
> Our Negotiation Manager implementation (online since a few days ago:
> https://cit-server.cit.tu-berlin.de/trac/negmgr/wiki) needs it.
> 
> So, yes, there are problems but it looks like a lot of people want to
> have this extra commit message. Are there any written records on the
> pros and cons of having the 2PC?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dominic
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4038 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20070823/4354c5df/attachment.bin