[occi-wg] Current drafts and comments on "pre-9th" draft for Standards Roadmap document; meeting schedule

Thu Mar 31 04:38:16 CDT 2011

Hi,

We are still in negotiation about the OCCI implementation in Eucalyptus. I
had mistakenly thought that 'I have money to pay for it' would have been
enough.

David
-- 
===================================
Dr David Wallom
Associate Director - Innovation
Oxford e-Research Centre
University of Oxford
Rm 160, 7 Keble Road
Oxford
OX1 3QG

+44(0)1865 610601
===================================

On 31/03/2011 08:28, "Thijs Metsch" <tmetsch at platform.com> wrote:

>
>Hi,
>
>>> And the implementation of OCCI in OpenStack and Eucalyptus are still
>>>under way and not released, correct?
>
>
>The OpenStack implementation is still under development - I rarely have
>time to work on it sadly enough. I added David Wallom to the CC list, he
>might be able to give an update about OCCI in Eucalyptus.
>
>>> * Is there any implementations of OCCI to offer PaaS service
>>>management?
>
>Well since OCCI is basically a boundary protocol (See
>http://occi-wg.org/about/) offerings supporting IaaS, PaaS and SaaS can
>be easily created using OCCI. Most implementation support this. E.g. the
>SSF (http://pyssf.sf.net) has an example on a keyvalue store or job
>submission. To my last knowledge Ralf Nyren's implementation will support
>Redis soon.
>
>>> * In OCCI process, is there ever any consideration of delivering some
>>>reference implementation?
>
>Please see this web page: http://occi-wg.org/community/implementations/
>
>As Alan stated there are several implementations around already. The
>currently two most up to date can be tested here:
>http://www.nyren.net/api/ and http://fjjutraa.joyent.us:8888/ (Both
>python implementation installable through easy_install occi|pyssf). At
>least 4 implementations are currently finalizing there last changes and
>should have interfaces up soon! So there is no real reference
>implementation but rather a pool to choose from.
>
>We have some compliancy test code here - which is currently OCCI bound -
>but could be reused:
>http://occi-wg.org/2011/01/18/occi-compliance-testing-tool/
>
>Also handy in case of testing compliancy is the ANTLR grammar Andy
>Edmonds created for the SLA at SOI project. That can be found here:
>https://github.com/dizz/occi-grammar
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>-Thijs 
>
>On Mar 31, 2011, at 4:43 AM, Sill, Alan wrote:
>
>> Hi Jin,
>> 
>> Thanks for your questions. My not-very-well-educated answers (I'm more
>>on top of the document process than the actual implementations
>>themselves) are embedded inline below; beyond this I invite the OCCI-WG
>>members to comment themselves.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 30, 2011, at 7:07 PM, "Tong, Jin" <jin.tong at nist.gov> wrote:
>> 
>>> Alan, thanks for sharing your comments. I have a few questions about
>>>OCCI adoption and implementation status after going through the
>>>presentation materials linked from your email:
>>> 
>>> * My understanding is OpenNebula has OCCI implemented, as functional
>>>equivalent to EC2 interface for VM management, correct?
>> 
>> Yes. We have definite commitments from the primary project leader for
>>OpenNebula for full implementation of all current OCCI features - their
>>present product includes support for an older version - and in his
>>words, to "build an ecosystem" of OpenNebula functionality around OCCI.
>> 
>>> And the implementation of OCCI in OpenStack and Eucalyptus are still
>>>under way and not released, correct?
>> 
>> I have seem a screenshot of a login window from an OpenStack
>>implementation claiming to offer OCCI services. Beyond this and some
>>email confirming it is on the roadmap for the bexar release, I don't
>>know any details on progress in OpenStack. The Eucalyptus implementation
>>is being paid for by a UK-funded project that includes some other
>>significant enhancements for use of Eucalyptus in science infrastructure
>>projects; my impression is that it is underway but still perhaps a few
>>months off. 
>> 
>>> * Is there any implementations of OCCI to offer PaaS service
>>>management?
>> 
>> Of the implementations I have taken the time to look at, the SSF one by
>>SLA at SOI seems to me to be the closest to offering connections to
>>services at the PaaS and actual application level. Here I really don't
>>want to stray into territory where I'm not an expert, though, and invite
>>the developer community to respond. Note that several products that have
>>implemented OCCI or are committed to doing so, like OpenNebula for
>>example, could themselves be considered as PaaS products.
>> 
>>> * In OCCI process, is there ever any consideration of delivering some
>>>reference implementation?
>> 
>> OGF as an SDO itself never delivers software, but concentrates on the
>>process of developing communities that develop work products
>>(documents), and encouraging implementations to be developed, then
>>documented themselves as part of the experience process and refinements
>>if ant to the original proposed recommendation before promotion to a
>>full OGF Recommendation. The latter category requires at least two
>>independent implementations and an extended period of practical use (at
>>minimum, 6 months) plus an experience document comparing implementation
>>experiences in the field before promotion to a full REC.  As we already
>>have so many implementations to compare before even full publication of
>>the OCCI P-REC specs, I am not worried at this point about having enough
>>material for the subsequent steps!
>> 
>> So while we do not have the official process in OGF of providing
>>official reference implementations, I have asked the group to help
>>provide some test code that can be run against a demo instance of an
>>OCCI-interfaced service that could be used, for example, in SAJACC.
>>Among the options to get something going quickly for one such
>>implementation (with quite a general package name, but just one option
>>among many) would be to type "easy_install occi" to get Ralf Nyren's
>>pypi OCCI package.
>> 
>> https://github.com/nyren/occi-py#readme
>> 
>> The availability of the libvirt implementation by TU-Dortmund and
>>popularity of libvirt as an underlying layer for IaaS products should
>>make other implementations easy to produce for libvirt-based products.
>> 
>> At this point, however, I want to get out of the way as quickly as
>>possible and invite any OCCI group members to comment, especially if
>>they have answers to your questions or want to correct any mistakes I
>>have made!
>> 
>> Take care and best wishes,
>> Alan
>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> --Jin
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: cc_standards at nist.gov [cc_standards at nist.gov] On Behalf Of Alan
>>>Sill [Alan.Sill at ttu.edu]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:55 PM
>>> To: CC_STANDARDS
>>> Subject: Current drafts and comments on "pre-9th" draft for Standards
>>>Roadmap document; meeting schedule
>>> 
>>> Hi Mike and Annie,
>>> 
>>> First of all, thank you both very much for your great leadership and
>>> coordination in the NIST Standards Roadmap working group.  Thanks also
>>> to the group for their great work so far.
>>> 
>>> Due to travel, I have not had the opportunity to participate in recent
>>> meetings, but see that there has been great progress on the document.
>>> The text and graphical descriptions have gotten much better, and I see
>>> that there is movement in filling out some information on the
>>> available standards.
>>> 
>>> As you know, OGF is close to final release of the Core and
>>> Infrastructure components of the OCCI specification set, and I see
>>> that it has already been incorporated into the tables as what I expect
>>> it will be by the time of the NIST meeting, as an Approved Standard.
>>> (This is correct; OGF terminology for a newly released standard is
>>> "Proposed Recommendation" (P-REC), two implementations plus documented
>>> feedback from extensive actual use in the community for an extended
>>> period are required to promote a GFD document to a full REC.)
>>> 
>>> I have asked the OCCI working group to review your current draft and
>>> to provide feedback on the comment template form for any alterations
>>> they would like to suggest.  At this point I have only asked them for
>>> suggested changes in the interest of accuracy.  As you know, we have
>>> had a tremendous uptake of OCCI by several open source projects and
>>> now two commercial ones; this is probably due to its simplicity as an
>>> extended set of features to http headers, and its consequent explicit
>>> platform neutrality and language independence leading to a great ease
>>> of implementation.  (My last count was 18 OCCI implementations either
>>> completed or in advanced states of work, and growing fast.)
>>> 
>>> We certainly want to document this progress adequately and hope to
>>> provide a proper set of comments to the draft roadmap soon, with
>>> earnest hope for their incorporation.
>>> 
>>> I note that there is not a meeting listed in the schedule for the
>>> Roadmap group for this week, which would normally be tomorrow (March
>>> 31).  In light of the possible availability of the comments mentioned
>>> above, and to give the group another chance to look over the draft
>>> document, can I suggest that we meet, either as a group or just as a
>>> sub-group to look a these comments, at the usual Standards Roadmap
>>> meeting time of 1 pm Eastern tomorrow to discuss these?
>>> 
>>> Let me know.
>>> 
>>> Finally, please note that OGF has more standards of interest to clouds
>>> and other large-scale distributed computing infrastructures than just
>>> OCCI.  Since this type of work is the focus of our organization as an
>>> SDO, we have many other specifications that have good uptake in
>>> industry; in particular, the secured transport-level data transfer
>>> specifications SRM and GridFTP, the WS-* based Basic Execution
>>> Services family of specs including those in the OGSA series, and our
>>> WS-Agreement and WS-AgreementNegotiation series oriented toward
>>> automated service level agreement negotiation, license management,
>>> etc. are probably also of interest.  The last one mentioned (WS-
>>> Negotiation for short) is in final public comment until May 15, 2011
>>> at http://ogf.org/gf/docs/?public_comment or directly at
>>>http://ogf.org/Public_Comment_Docs/Documents/2011-03/WS-Agreement-Negoti
>>>ation+v1.0.pdf
>>> and is due to be released shortly thereafter, pending final OGF
>>> Standards Council review upon completion of this public comment period.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> P.S.: As a reminder to the group, the European SIENA roadmap current
>>> document corresponding to this NIST one has been released; please see
>>>http://sienainitiative.eu
>>> where you can create a free account to download this or other
>>> relevant documents.  In particular you may be interested in the
>>> presentations at the recent CloudScape III meeting, which was well-
>>> attended by European distributed computing infrastructure projects and
>>> government representatives, as well as by Dawn Leaf.  I include below
>>> a couple of direct links to the roadmap document and to the OCCI
>>> presentation at that workshop, in case these might be useful.
>>> 
>>> SIENA Roadmap document:
>>> 
>>>  http://tinyurl.com/4az6f6y
>>> 
>>> OGF OCCI Presentation:
>>> 
>>>  http://tinyurl.com/4owlrwg
>>> 
>>> Bonus link: OGF 31 Standards Plenary summary talk (March 23)
>>> summarizing status of recently released documents:
>>> 
>>>  http://tinyurl.com/4gaugsk
>>> 
>>> Alan Sill, Ph.D
>>> Senior Scientist, High Performance Computing Center
>>> Adjunct Professor of Physics, TTU
>>> Vice President of Standards, Open Grid Forum
>>> 
>>> ====================================================================
>>> :  Alan Sill, Texas Tech University  Office: Drane 162, MS 4-1167  :
>>> :  e-mail: Alan.Sill at ttu.edu   ph. 806-742-4350  fax 806-742-4358  :
>>> ====================================================================
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If you would like to unsubscribe from cc_standards, please send
>>> an email to listproc at nist.gov with a message body of:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> unsubscribe cc_standards
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please note: you must send the message from the account that you are
>>>subscribed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>