[ogsa-wg] Roadmap v19 uploaded

[Gregory Newby]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:21PM +0900, Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> >>I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the
> >>document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
> >
> > You're talking about this document, right?
> >
> > 	A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0)
> > 	https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548
> >
> > The Public Comment tracker is here:
> > 	https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker.  I must
> > be missing something.
> 
> The comment is made against "Attributes used in OGSA Authorization" not
> "OGSA roadmap."

Got it - sorry for not realizing this.

> You've pasted my comment here:
> https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/message.php?msg_id=1282
> 
> And actual comments are made in the uploaded word document;
> https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1485
> 
> You can find my comment on the first page:
> "OGSA-WG has OGSA profile definition document and OGSA WSRF Basic
> Profile as an example. I recommend to re-format this document based on
> the OGSA profile definition."
> 
> At the August F2F meeting in Sunnyvale, OGSA-WG and OGSA-AuthZ-WG
> have agreed not to reformat this version.
> 
> From the F2F meeting minutes;
> > Attributes document give information background and defines profiles.
> > Hiro proposed to use profile format. Only part of document is
> > profile, and the rest is informational. Part that is a profile can be
> > changed to OGSA format. Tom: still struggling with document structure
> > in OGSA. Discussion if document can be divided in two, to make clear
> > what is normative and what is not. Consensus that will address this
> > in version 2.
> 
> > There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my
> > understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before
> > moving this to the next step.  If the changes are substantial, we
> > might want to run it through another public comment period.
> 
> We think the changes are all minor and we don't need another public
> comment period.

Understood, and I put a note about this in the public comment
tracker.  However, this document still has another couple
of days in the 60-day public comment period.  It's scheduled
for completion on September 22.  At that time, I'll change
the tracker status to alert the authors that their response
(in the tracker, and/or via an updated document) is solicited.

It's good to know the anticipated changes are minor.  No, there
should be no need for a further public comment period.  (The
GGF procedure seems to vary with the IETF's here: we think it's
OK to have moderate changes after the public comment period, without
requiring a further public comment period.  The IETF seems to 
frown on such changes.)

I'm not sure this note is responsive to your original question,
so please send me a clue if I'm missing anything.
  -- Greg

> Thanks,
> ----
> Hiro Kishimoto
> 
> Gregory Newby wrote:
> >(Note that I'm not on the ogsa-wg mailing list -- please
> >forward this note if needed)
> >
> >On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:09:56AM -0700, David Snelling wrote:
> >
> >>Jem et al,
> >>
> >>On 2 Sep 2005, at 15:57, Treadwell, Jem wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm  not making this the Final Call version yet, because I need to 
> >>>clarify something: although Takuya put the AuthZ docs in section 
> >>>5, and I agree that they're profiles (though the Use of SAML doesn't 
> >>>actually mention the word profile), the versions I found on 
> >>>GridForge don't conform to the OGSA Profile Definition.
> >>
> >>I mentioned this in the GFSG review prior to AuthZ going to PC. I'm 
> >>hoping the Greg and the authors agree in time to use the Profile 
> >>template, as it would make the document easier to follow and of course 
> >>match the OGSA document structure. Note that the AuthZ authors are not 
> >>bound (by their charter) to conform to the Profile template, but I 
> >>think it would help all around. This may not happen until a later 
> >>version.
> >
> >
> >The template idea is great, but it will mostly be the WG
> >that "enforces" it -- from what I've heard so far, much of
> >it won't apply to non-OGSA-WG documents.
> >
> >There are definitely some items that will apply much
> >more broadly....for example, the discussion about how
> >to allude to the trademark, and when to spell out OGSA
> >versus using the acronym.  
> >
> >These types of items would be great for another document, even a
> >casual "howto" for the Editor tracker area rather than a
> >formal document.  This is something I could link in
> >(here: https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ggf-editor) &
> >update as needed.
> >
> >
> >>In the meantime, I would list it in the Profile section, but note that 
> >>it is not in the expected format.
> >>
> >>I don't know how the authors responded to the note I put on the 
> >>document's tracker. Greg, can you help?
> >
> >
> >You're talking about this document, right?
> >
> >	A Roadmap for the Open Grid Services Architecture (v1.0)
> >	https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1548
> >
> >The Public Comment tracker is here:
> >	https://forge.gridforum.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=540
> >
> >I'm sorry, but I didn't see a note from you in either tracker.  I must
> >be missing something.
> >
> >There are responses from Jem in the Public Comment tracker, and my
> >understanding is that we're awaiting a couple of other sections before
> >moving this to the next step.  If the changes are substantial, we
> >might want to run it through another public comment period.
> >  -- Greg
> >
> >
> >