[ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view

[A S McGough]

Matching in with some of the comments from Andreas the JSDL 
specification is the language and not how it is used. If there are 
mistakes in the language these should be fixed. That said there may be 
some justification for writing a base profile document which all 
profiles (such as HPC) should conform with. Thoughts?

steve..

Marvin Theimer wrote:
> Hi;
>
> If the HPC profile defines the semantics of something and the JSDL spec
> doesn't then that implies that some other profile is free to define the
> semantics differently.  Is that really what you want to allow?  That
> seems like it will invite unexpected mishaps for anyone who tries to run
> both HPC and other workloads on a grid. 
>
> Marvin.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:10 PM
> To: Michel Drescher
> Cc: Donal K. Fellows; Marvin Theimer; JSDL Working Group;
> ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org; Ed Lassettre; Ming Xu (WINDOWS)
> Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes
> to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view
>
> Comments inline.
>
> Michel Drescher wrote:
>   
>> Donal K. Fellows wrote:
>>     
>>> Marvin Theimer wrote:
>>>       
>>>> If we narrow the definitions of mountpoint and mountsource enough
>>>>         
> and
>   
>>>> precisely describe their semantics then we might arrive at something
>>>> that could be fairly widely used.  I'm thinking of things like
>>>>         
> saying
>   
>>>> that you can't navigate "out" of a file system via "cd ..", etc. 
>>>> This is definitely something to explore. 
>>>>         
>>> Change "can't" to "shouldn't" and I'd agree. I don't regard the mount
>>> stuff as being a way of describing security enforcement points.
>>>       
> Systems
>   
>>> can do it that way, but at least some won't.
>>>       
>> +1 from me. In fact, I think this should be part of JSDL in a
>> "maintenance release" sort of publication anyway.
>>     
>
> -1 from me for adding this in JSDL. It is not a language issue. I do
> think the HPC Profile should probably speak to this with respect to the
> execution environment that a job should expect.
>
>   
>>> In fact, I'd be happy enough with the profile stating that paths in
>>>       
> JSDL
>   
>>> documents should not contain either the "." or the ".." elements at
>>>       
> all.
>   
>>> That's a fairly strong requirement and guarantees that the job won't
>>> fail on systems where your style of semantics are enforced.
>>>       
>> Again, +1
>> (and having it normatively mentioned in the JSDL publication)
>>
>>     
>
> I too see this is a profiling issue. I have no problem for the HPC
> profile to make a stronger statement than the JSDL spec on this as a
> security consideration.
> So -1 from me for adding this in the JSDL spec normatively.
>
>   


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr A. Stephen McGough                       http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~asm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Coordinator, London e-Science Centre, Imperial College London,
Department of Computing, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK
tel: +44 (0)207-594-8409                        fax: +44 (0)207-581-8024
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060616/a2bf6d6b/attachment.htm