[ogsa-hpcp-wg] Globus Status

[Peter G. Lane]

I'm just saying that I believe part of this activity should be to document our experiences so people 
can learn from them. I didn't have anything to post before I started this thread because I wasn't 
able to do any interop testing (i.e. no functioning client or service). Others have done testing, 
though, and I've seen no discussion of people's experiences. I already admitted that this wouldn't 
have necessarily prevented my dilemma and apologized for reacting in a manor that perhaps seemed 
harsh, but I do think it's a good idea.

Peter

Christopher Smith wrote:
> It wasn't like we had a discussion and all of a sudden decided this or that.
> When I needed to interop with Mark's service, he required the WS-Addressing
> support in the client, so I could implement it and be interoperable, or give
> up interop with his endpoint. As it turned out, the WS-Addressing support I
> put in was done last after all other stuff.
> 
> I'm sorry if you wasted some time on this, but you also haven't been very
> vocal about your status yourself. Rich, Glenn, Mark and I have worked
> through lots of issues, but a lot of them come out in point to point issues.
> 
> -- Chris
> 
> 
> On 06/11/06 09:12, "Peter G. Lane" <lane at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>> --
>>   ogsa-hpcp-wg mailing list
>>   ogsa-hpcp-wg at ogf.org
>>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-hpcp-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-hpcp-wg/attachments/20061106/a3c0f5d9/attachment-0001.bin