[ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Hi Fred,

My comments inline <HK>.
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Fred Maciel wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> 
>>A very good question! ("can you define the goals of the BOF 
>>more precisely other than "not WSRF"?) I sent this email in part to hear 
>>from the community
>>how "broad" they might like it to be. That is, we're being 
>>flexible. If someone wants to talk about one of these specific topics, we 
>>will certainly try our best to accommodate.
> 
> 
> I think that different people will see this from different angles, and if we
> don't understand the different "problems" involved the BOF can get messy. So
> let me try to decompose the problem, hoping that it will help the steering
> of the BOF.
> 
> (1) Are multiple base profiles OK to begin with?
> 
> 
>>Let me answer the question in a different way. GGF Chair Mark 
>>Linesch said [...]
> 
> 
> Yes, but some of us (I included) think that multiple base profiles is a bad
> idea, no matter what Mark Linesch said. Suffices to say that this is a
> religious discussion, in which all sides have strong opinions beforehand,
> spend a long time in a heated discussion, but nobody is be able to change
> anybody else's opinion. The ones we had in the OGSA-WG weren't fun.

<HK>
I agree multiple basic profiles are bad idea wrt interoperability
and architecture perspective. However, OGSA-WG or GGF at large has
agreed to keep our door open. This policy is written in "OGSA Evolution
Policy Statement" which was reviewed in April.

http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2005/04/doc00004.doc
</HK>

> Try to steer the discusion past that one (or around it), so that we can get
> to the next problem:
> 
> (2) How do the protocols sets in this area (the WSRF+WSN set, and the
> WS-Transfer etc. set) compare to each other?
> 
> That one should be an interesting one, especially to end FUD. I'm looking
> forward to what you have to say. That should give the background to:

<HK>
If WS-Transfer, WS-Eventing and WS-Enumeration is mature and some
SDO already starts (or plan to start) standardization process, it
is the time to start anther basic profile discussion using these
specs.
</HK>

> (3) What are the plans for the "WS-I-only" profile?
> 
> 
>>Here is the information that Steven Newhouse provided for the GGF
>>organizers:
>>
>>"A BOF meeting to discuss the creation of a WG to define an OGSA Basic
>>Profile that builds upon a minimal set of simple web services. The output
> 
> of
> 
> This seems to be the main subject of the BOF, right? As you said, you are
> being flexible, and you have an interest in (2), but if we don't take care
> we won't even get to (3) in 1 1/2 hour.

<HK>
You can create "WS-I-only" profile but it does not provide standard
state handling mechanism thus it cannot establish interoperability.

We've discussed this topic in the mail thread titled "Modeling State:
Technical Questions" started by Ian Foster, didn't we?
</HK>


> Anything else?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred Maciel
> Hitachi America R&D
> 
> 
>