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

[Marty Humphrey]

Hi Fred,

Yes, these are all very good points. I agree that SOME time should be spent
on your question [1] (Are multiple base profiles OK to begin with?), but
that if we are not careful, we will spend all of our time there, with
perhaps little progress. 

Your question [2] (How do the protocols sets in this area (the WSRF+WSN set,
and the WS-Transfer etc. set) compare to each other?) and question [3] (What
are the plans for the "WS-I-only" profile?) are clearly the most important.
I know that I will speak from first-hand experience and attempt to be as
objective and realistic as possible with regard to the two stacks that we
have used/implemented (WSRF "vs" WS-Transfer et. al). We will also discuss
our initial explorations at interop between the two stacks.

With regard to a "WS-I-only" profile, well, this is perhaps one topic in
which differences of opinion might exist within the BOF organizers (again,
this is fine -- this is exactly the type of thing that should be discussed
at a BOF, right?). While I, personally, certainly respect the
goals/intentions of a "WS-I-only stack" even "WS-I+WS-Addressing-only
stack", I see no reason to preclude WS-Transfer/WS-Enum/WS-Eventing, if they
are deemed to have important functionality for OGSA. I have no doubt that
these will appear in standards bodies relatively soon, although I really
have no idea when they might appear in some profile in WS-I (this is again a
possible topic of discussion for the GGF BOF -- a perceived need for such a
profile). 

We all want OGSA to succeed. It is important that everyone needs to keep
this overall goal in mind when either thinking about the BOF beforehand or
participating in the BOF. The overall goal of the BOF is, of course, to
determine if the pursuit of one/more "non-WSRF" profiles will help OGSA
succeed. 

-- Marty

Marty Humphrey
Assistant Professor 
Department of Computer Science
University of Virginia



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Maciel [mailto:Fred.Maciel at hds.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 11:12 PM
> To: Marty Humphrey; 'Ogsa-Wg'
> Subject: RE: [ogsa-wg] OGSA-MWS-BOF at GGF14 on Tues June 28, noon-1:30
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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:
> 
> (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.
> 
> Anything else?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fred Maciel
> Hitachi America R&D