[GRAAP-WG] OGF: SLA framework

Mon Mar 2 12:29:58 CST 2009

Revisiting the life cycle is certainly a good idea to decide on next steps.

My take is that 2 has been addressed by WS-Agreement, even though maybe not
to the full extent required to drive the subsequent negotiation phase if
more sophisticated protocols are to be required. Generally, as Igor is
pointing out, it provides some content structure underpinnings that can be
used throughout the life-cycle.

The next question we should ask ourselves is what parts of this life-cycle
should be standardized and where competing approaches provide more benefits
for tools and services providers and customers. Is anyone aware of a good
metric for this decision process?

Heiko

-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center
based at Almaden Research Center, 650 Harry Road, San Jose, CA 95120-6099
hludwig at us.ibm.com, tel. +1 408-927-1488,  mob. +1 646-675-8469
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/

  From:       "Igor Rosenberg" <igor.rosenberg at atosresearch.eu>                                     

  To:         <graap-wg at ogf.org>                                                                    

  Date:       03/02/09 07:05 AM                                                                     

  Subject:    [GRAAP-WG]  OGF: SLA framework                                                        

Hello,
I'd like to get in more detail of the "standardisation of SLA
frameworks" idea I'd mentioned last month. Within the GRAAP group, a
(pre)standard has been defined on how an SLA should look like, and how
to create it. Fine. But this is only a fraction of what is needed for an
implementation of SLAs for business. Let me present a possible view of
the SLA lifecycle:

A- Contract definition phase
  1. Template creation
  2. Publication&Discovery
B- Negotiation phase
  3. Negotiation
  4. Optimisation of resources
C- Enforcement Phase
  5. Monitoring&Evaluation
  6. Re-Negotiation
  7. Accounting
D- De-Commisioning phase
  8. De-Commisioning

Within GRAAP, only point 3 has really been addressed. If we look at
other SLA "standards", like the ones presented in GRIA, GRASP, etc., we
can see a lot of research effort in lots of SLA concepts. I personally
think it is time to present some rationalized views of the previous work
which has been done, and try to fix into a standard the basic blocks of
an SLA framework. A possible starting point is [1] below. What
functionality is required to have a framework which supports SLAs? Which
are the optional bits, what do they add? GRIA and GRASP have a working
SLA framework, how much work is needed to bring WS-Agreement to this
level? I have a keen interest in seeing how an enforced agreement should
be treated, both by provider and client: how do guarantees get evaluated
fairly, how much information should the client receive, is it fair to
let the provider request a re-negotiation, who sorts out litigations,
etc.

Or am I trying to go too fast? Do we need to see more implementations of
WS-Agreement (negotiation) before trying to expand?

Well, any comments appreciated...

Regards
Igor Rosenberg,
Research Engineer,
Atos Origin, Spain

[1] A Comparison of SLA Use in Six of the European Commissions FP6
Projects, M. Parkin, R. M. Badia, J Martrat

http://www.coregrid.net/mambo/images/stories/TechnicalReports/tr-0129.pd
f

-----Original Message-----
From: Philipp Wieder [mailto:philipp.wieder at udo.edu]
Sent: lunes, 23 de febrero de 2009 14:19
To: Igor Rosenberg
Cc: graap-wg at ogf.org
Subject: Re: [GRAAP-WG] OGF: SLA framework

Hi Igor,

thanks for the contribution.

A first easy step to inform the community is to add your implementation
to the respective site at the WS-Agreement web [1]. Just send me a link
and two sentences and I will add it there.

Secondly, it would be good to get your feedback on your actual
implementation of WS-Agreement for the experience document. We have a
questionnaire [2] for that an it would be very helpful for GRAAP if you
filled it.

Regarding the standardisation of SLA frameworks I am not sure what you
are referring to in detail. Could you please elaborate a bit more on
this and we than can decide whether this is within the scope of GRAAP.

Best regards, Philipp.

[1]
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.graap-wg/wiki/I
mplementations
[2]
https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.graap
-wg/docman.root.current_drafts.ws_agreement_experience_docuemnt/doc15358

Igor Rosenberg wrote:
> Hello GRAAP group,
> Within the EU BeinGrid project (beingrid.eu), we've been developing an
> SLA framework for GT4. It is based on a component architecture (by
this,
> understand independent modules). I have some material that describes
it
> that I could pass to the community, including a paper (attached).
> Implementation of the different components is finished (nearly all
> components are licensed as Apache V2, only one is freeware binary),
and
> we're currently making sure it all integrates smoothly. I think it
> should be advertised to the OGF community (at least the guys and girls
> interested in GT4). I also propose that from the work done, we could
try
> to standardize the SLA frameworks that exist for Grids (GRIA, GRASP,
> Unicore, and now GT4); btw our framework is based on the March 2007
> WS-Agreement specification of the OGF, which describes SLA contracts
> (www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.107.pdf), but is meant to be generic
> (different SLA formats can be plugged in) .
> What would be the way forward? Who should I get in touch with?
> Regards
>
> Igor Rosenberg,
> Research Engineer,
> Atos Origin, Spain
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended
> solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive
> this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy
it.
> As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos Origin
> group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although
> the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network,
> the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and
> will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus
transmitted.
>
> Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion
confidencial
> destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente
> pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional.
> Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por
informar
> inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje.
> Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos
Origin
> no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye
ningun
> compromiso para el grupo Atos Origin, salvo ratificacion escrita por
ambas partes.
> Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el
emisor
> no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de
cualesquiera
> danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
>   graap-wg mailing list
>   graap-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg
------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail and the documents attached are confidential and intended
solely for the addressee; it may also be privileged. If you receive
this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy it.
As its integrity cannot be secured on the Internet, the Atos Origin
group liability cannot be triggered for the message content. Although
the sender endeavours to maintain a computer virus-free network,
the sender does not warrant that this transmission is virus-free and
will not be liable for any damages resulting from any virus transmitted.

Este mensaje y los ficheros adjuntos pueden contener informacion
confidencial
destinada solamente a la(s) persona(s) mencionadas anteriormente
pueden estar protegidos por secreto profesional.
Si usted recibe este correo electronico por error, gracias por informar
inmediatamente al remitente y destruir el mensaje.
Al no estar asegurada la integridad de este mensaje sobre la red, Atos
Origin
no se hace responsable por su contenido. Su contenido no constituye ningun
compromiso para el grupo Atos Origin, salvo ratificacion escrita por ambas
partes.
Aunque se esfuerza al maximo por mantener su red libre de virus, el emisor
no puede garantizar nada al respecto y no sera responsable de cualesquiera
danos que puedan resultar de una transmision de virus.
------------------------------------------------------------------

--
  graap-wg mailing list
  graap-wg at ogf.org
  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/graap-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20090302/5ba90183/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20090302/5ba90183/attachment.gif 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ecblank.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 45 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20090302/5ba90183/attachment-0001.gif 