[OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions

Wed Sep 6 09:56:01 CDT 2006

If it's about fear of reopening the dialog, then I'd appreciate if someone could at least add 
comments to the two trackers addressing the issues raised.

Ian can push for reopening this particular issue if he wants; but I just want to know why we're 
advocating WS-Transfer in spirit if not in name, and why aggregation of resource attributes is not a 
concern to anyone else. As long as someone has a reason for these issues that I raised in the 
tracker, I'm fine. I don't expect to get everything to go my way, and I'm open to being convinced of 
alternate points of view. I just don't like being ignorant, especially when I'll have to implement 
the spec someday.

On the other hand, if nobody has a good answer for the issues, I think Ian is perfectly valid in 
asking for it to be reopened as apparently the issues weren't actually addressed as they should have 
been.

Peter

Mark Morgan wrote:
> Well, I guess the thing that confuses me is whether or not it is SOP to
> re-open an issue that was discussed previously because a new person has
> re-raised that issue.  I'll bow to whatever the majority thinks is best of
> course, but it seems to me that you can't reopen an issue everytime a new
> person re-raises it or you risk the possibility of continuously cycling on
> it.  New information should always be considered, but if an issue gets
> re-raised that has already been discussed fully and voted on, then it
> doesn't make sense to re-discuss it.  Just my 2 cents worth...
> 
> -Mark 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org 
>> [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:39 PM
>> To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group; 'Mail list for 
>> ogsa-bes-wg working group'; ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
>> Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>> I guess that I am asking that we re-open the issue, then.
>>
>> Ian.
>>
>> At 07:47 PM 9/5/2006 -0400, Mark Morgan wrote:
>>
>>
>> 	I'm not sure what level of "addressing" is meant here, but my
>> 	recollection/belief was that it was addressed in the 
>> group in so much as the
>> 	topic was discussed at the last face-to-face and that 
>> the appearance of the
>> 	GetAttributesDocument was the result of that 
>> discussion.  We haven't as a
>> 	group discussed the email that Peter sent out yet but 
>> it is my belief that
>> 	doing so is essentially a rehash of discussions previously had.
>> 	
>> 	-Mark 
>> 	
>> 	> -----Original Message-----
>> 	> From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org 
>> 	> [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster
>> 	> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:42 PM
>> 	> To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group; 
>> ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
>> 	> Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
>> 	> 
>> 	> Has Peter's comment been discussed?
>> 	> 
>> 	> He advocates (I believe) that we should not include the 
>> 	> GetAttributesDocument operation. Instead, any particular BES 
>> 	> should choose (if they wish) to provide access to attributes 
>> 	> via an appropriate resource model-specific operations.
>> 	> 
>> 	> * A WS-Transfer-based BES would use GET
>> 	> * A WSRF-based BES would use WS-ResourceProperties
>> 	> * A resource-model-free BES might define a 
>> 	> GetAttributesDocument operation
>> 	> * etc.
>> 	> 
>> 	> This seems a good proposal to me.
>> 	> 
>> 	> Ian.
>> 	> 
>> 	> At 03:09 PM 9/2/2006 -0600, Peter G. Lane wrote:
>> 	> 
>> 	> 
>> 	>       2) Why are we still essentially advocating 
>> 	> WS-Transfer's attribute model by having the 
>> 	> GetAttributesDocument operation? In my opinion it is not 
>> 	> necessary for minimal interop, and makes WS-Transfer's Get 
>> 	> operation redundant. Is part of the problem that we haven't 
>> 	> defined any interop standards yet?
>> 	> 
>> 	> 
>> _______________________________________________________________
>> 	> Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com 
>> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/>  
>> 	> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute: 
>> 	> www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>  
>> <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>  & 
>> 	> www.ci.anl.gov <http://www.ci.anl.gov/>  
>> <http://www.ci.anl.gov/>
>> 	> Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439
>> 	> Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637
>> 	> Tel: +1 630 252 4619 --- Globus Alliance: 
>> www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/>  
>> 	> <http://www.globus.org/> 
>> 	>       
>> 	>         
>> 	> 
>> 	> 
>> 	
>> 	--
>> 	  ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>> 	  ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>> 	  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________
>> Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com 
>> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute: 
>> www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>  & 
>> www.ci.anl.gov <http://www.ci.anl.gov/>
>> Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439
>> Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637
>> Tel: +1 630 252 4619 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org 
>> <http://www.globus.org/> 
>>       
>>         
>>
>>
> 
> --
>   ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>   ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3804 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060906/ab7b7baa/attachment-0002.bin 