[ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
Mark Morgan
mmm2a at cs.virginia.edu
Mon Nov 6 12:15:30 CST 2006
I quite understand Peter and don't blame you at all for being frustrated.
You are definitely right that more discussion on email list couldn't help
but to improve things and with SC looming close I think everyone is feeling
the pressure. And, I certainly understand about the email list --
unfortunately, its usually the case that the information that one usually
wishes most to be published is that which isn't. Hindsight being what it
is, the info about the headers would have been very helpful in the public
view but sadly at the time it just hadn't occurred to us that anyone else
would be interested. That, and we weren't even using email to discuss it
but rather IM as a means of having a real-time conversation to promote
debugging. Anyways, I do apologize for all of this mess and hope that it
doesn't cause too much pain this week. Please feel free to let me know if
there is anything I can do to help out!
-Mark
--
Mark Morgan
Research Scientist
Department of Computer Science
University of Virginia
http://www.cs.virginia.edu
mmm2a at virginia.edu
(434) 982-2047
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane at mcs.anl.gov]
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:13 PM
> To: Mark Morgan
> Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
>
> I don't think anybody colluded behind my back, don't get me
> wrong. I'm just trying to say that we should be more open
> about our discussion of what people are doing to achieve
> interop. For example, if a discussion between you and Chris
> had been held on the list about him implementing the headers
> in his client so that he could talk to your service, I would
> have picked up on this sooner and perhaps been saved from
> last-minute problems. So while I think it's likely largely a
> miscommunication, more open communication is perhaps part of it too.
>
> I don't mean every little detail should have been discussed
> (Glenn and I are discussing a problem off list as we write),
> but summaries of problems and how it was overcome would be
> appropriate in case others run into the same problems. But
> perhaps everybody just implemented the soap headers without
> talking to anyone else, so I'll admit there's no guarantee
> this would have been caught sooner.
>
> I'm also panicking since I've not been able to use anybody's
> service so far. So I apologize if I came off as a bit flippant.
>
> Peter
>
> Mark Morgan wrote:
> > I'm very sorry that you feel this way Peter and that you
> felt like you
> > were forced to handicap your service, but as I have been trying to
> > say, people have NOT been colluding behind your back. I am pretty
> > sure that you misunderstood the conversation that you refer to and
> > that at no time did anyone ever say that you couldn't use
> > WS-Addressing EPRs. My recollection of that entire
> conversation was
> > that it revolved primarily around whether or not people
> were required
> > to use WS-Addressing EndpointReferenceTypes, not whether or
> not they
> > were allowed to (modulo Chris Smith's one comment on how he
> would rather not implement WS-Addressing in his client).
> >
> > Looking back over the email history of that conversation,
> it started
> > with an email from you on 13 October 2006 which said,
> > "Endpoints should be posted as EPRs, not URLs."
> > , to which Glenn Wasson responded,
> > "Not everyone needs an EPR to contact the service."
> >
> > From these two comments it seems clear to me that this
> conversation is
> > about whether or not people were required to post
> WS-Addressing EPRs
> > to the WIKI, not about whether or not they were allowed to
> implement
> > and use WS-Addressing for their endpoints.
> >
> > Further, the Chris Smith email you refer to contains the following
> > text, "
> > Instead of:
> >
> > https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090
> >
> > You want:
> >
> > <wsa:EndpointReference
> xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> >
> <wsa:Address>https://aristotle.dreadnought.org:9090</wsa:Address>
> > </wsa:EndpointReference>
> > "
> >
> > Again, notice that this is about representation on the
> wiki, not about
> > WS-Addressing as an allowed protocol. This message indicates the
> > means by which the two representations (for degenerate EPRs) can be
> > transformed back and forth. In that email, he does make
> the statement
> > you refer to, "I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some
> > SOAP header blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had
> > hoped to avoid this detail for now....", but this is about
> his client, not the interop fest as a whole.
> >
> > From their the discussion turned largely into one of
> transport binding
> > terminology, but the final word on the email list was a
> mail from you
> > indicating that you would implement your service as a
> singleton that
> > didn't require EPRs. Now that I read that, I can see how
> this could have happened.
> > At that point, if someone was paying really close attention, they
> > would have realized that you had just agreed to a course of action
> > that was unneccessarily drastic. However, I think most
> people left it
> > at that because your email seemed to declare that you had come to a
> > decision internally and as such didn't need to discuss the
> issue further.
> >
> > Again, I am truly sorry that you feel like you wasted your time
> > turning your service into a singleton, but please realize
> that while
> > this incident is unfortunate, it is not necessarily the case that
> > anything underhanded or clandestine occurred. I believe
> that it was
> > simple miscommunication that lead to this unfortunate accident.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Morgan
> > Research Scientist
> > Department of Computer Science
> > University of Virginia
> > http://www.cs.virginia.edu
> > mmm2a at virginia.edu
> > (434) 982-2047
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane at mcs.anl.gov]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:36 AM
> >> To: Mark Morgan
> >> Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg at ggf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
> >>
> >> I'm a little frustrated because I thought I made it clear
> when I was
> >> pushing for EPRs as a requirement that we needed clients
> to support
> >> the WS-Adressing headers. But since it sounded as though people
> >> didn't want to bother with this, I capitulated and made my service
> >> use a singleton resource that didn't need an EPR, limiting it's
> >> capabilities and wasting time. So now I find that people
> have agreed
> >> off list to support such a scenario and I'm left with not being
> >> interoperable.
> >>
> >> What I'm saying is that I don't have an objection to this in
> >> principle, but it would have been nice if someone would have
> >> clarified this earlier on the list when I was arguing the that my
> >> service would also need to add a ReferenceParameters
> element. I saw
> >> no discussion of people implementing the soap headers in
> clients so
> >> that they could interop with such services.
> >>
> >> Peter
> >>
> >> Mark Morgan wrote:
> >>> Well, personally, I believe that the discussion before
> >> revolved around
> >>> whether or not people were required to post EPRs to the
> >> WIKI pages for
> >>> degenerate EPRs where only the Address field had a value
> >> (i.e., where
> >>> metadata and reference parameters were empty or null as
> >> allowed by spec.).
> >>> Since such an EPR is identical in informational content to
> >> a play URL,
> >>> people believed that they shouldn't be required to post EPRs.
> >>> However, at no point did we decide to dissalow WS-Addressing of
> >>> endpoint should an implementation choose to use them. Chris (and
> >>> please correct me Chris if I mis-represent you) certainly
> >> expressed a
> >>> desire to avoid implementing WS-Addressing on his client
> >> side, but has
> >>> since done so in order to achieve interoperability with the
> >> GenesisII
> >>> endpoint as our endpoint requires the ReferenceParameters header
> >>> elements. Others in the HPC interop group, can you confirm
> >> or deny my
> >>> interpretation of the early discussion? Is my endpoint out
> >> of spec.,
> >>> or am I correct in assuming that I am welcome to use
> >> WS-Addressing for
> >>> my endpoint (i.e., to require ReferenceParameters in the
> headers.)?
> >>>
> >>> -Mark
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Mark Morgan
> >>> Research Scientist
> >>> Department of Computer Science
> >>> University of Virginia
> >>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu
> >>> mmm2a at virginia.edu
> >>> (434) 982-2047
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Peter G. Lane [mailto:lane at mcs.anl.gov]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 11:09 AM
> >>>> To: Mark Morgan
> >>>> Cc: ogsa-hpcp-wg at ggf.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
> >>>>
> >>>> This is what Chris said:
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm guessing that yours will require me to set some SOAP header
> >>>> blocks based on the WS-Addressing SOAP binding. I had
> >> hoped to avoid
> >>>> this detail for now....
> >>>>
> >>>> By this I was under the impression that nobody was going
> to build
> >>>> clients that added WS-Addressing SOAP headers. If that was
> >> the case,
> >>>> then services shouldn't publish EPRs that have anything
> >> more than an
> >>>> address field.
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris, did you change your mind? Was this only your point
> >> of view, or
> >>>> did you think that everyone was going to skip the SOAP
> headers as
> >>>> well?
> >>>>
> >>>> At any rate, I should still be able to interop with
> those services
> >>>> that aren't expecting the SOAP headers. It just means I have to
> >>>> exclude at least the Genesis II implementation since I
> won't have
> >>>> enough time to implement the agreed upon version of
> WS-Addressing.
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter
> >>>>
> >>>> Mark Morgan wrote:
> >>>>> I think you misunderstood the result of that
> discussion. The end
> >>>>> result was that services that didn't NEED EPRs, could use URLs.
> >>>>> However, we didn't dissalow EPRs, only allowed the more
> >>>> degenerate case of them (the pure URL).
> >>>>> -Mark
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Mark Morgan
> >>>>> Research Scientist
> >>>>> Department of Computer Science
> >>>>> University of Virginia
> >>>>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu
> >>>>> mmm2a at virginia.edu
> >>>>> (434) 982-2047
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces at ogf.org
> >>>>>> [mailto:ogsa-hpcp-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of
> Peter G. Lane
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 10:28 AM
> >>>>>> To: ogsa-hpcp-wg at ggf.org
> >>>>>> Subject: [ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I have the create and terminate operations implemented
> >> and working
> >>>>>> locally. I will put up an endpoint sometime today, and by
> >>>> them will
> >>>>>> hopefully have the other operations implemented. Is
> there a WSDL
> >>>>>> snipit or something of this "Show job output" operation,
> >>>> or does this
> >>>>>> just mean that I have an FTP server running?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Problems
> >>>>>> --------
> >>>>>> I am unable to get responses from either of the .Net
> >>>> implementations
> >>>>>> using my client. My SOAP message logging show that the
> >>>> client message
> >>>>>> is going out, but nothing is ever received back. Are these
> >>>> services
> >>>>>> still up?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I tried using my client on the Platform service (service URL
> >>>>>> https://plato.dreadnought.org), but I got an error
> >> saying that the
> >>>>>> client couldn't find the correct CA. I did download and
> >>>> install the
> >>>>>> CA cert and have debug output showing it was loaded, so
> >>>> I'm wondering
> >>>>>> if anyone has had success with this service recently. If
> >>>> so, Chris,
> >>>>>> could I get the public certificate of the server to help in my
> >>>>>> debugging?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> After agreeing that we wouldn't use EPRs, I'm confused
> >>>> about the use
> >>>>>> of them on the wiki. I did what others did and didn't bother
> >>>>>> implementing support for the WS-Addressing SOAP headers.
> >>>> The Platform
> >>>>>> EPR is trivial so that's not a problem.
> >>>>>> The GenesisII EPR, though, is very non-trivial. That said,
> >>>> I see that
> >>>>>> some clients have indeed talked to the GenesisII
> >> endpoint, so I'm
> >>>>>> rather confused. Did I miss a discussion where it was
> >> decided that
> >>>>>> full WS-Addressing support was now mandatory?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Finally, I tried to use the CROWN endpoint too, but I get the
> >>>>>> following error:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Authentication failed [Caused by: Defective credential
> detected
> >>>>>> [Caused by: [JGLOBUS-96] Certificate
> >>>>>> "C=CN,ST=Beijing,L=Beijing,O=company,OU=department,CN=localhos
> >>>>>> t" expired]]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Peter
> >>>>>>
> >>
> >
>
>
More information about the ogsa-hpcp-wg
mailing list