[ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design efforts"

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Hi Savas,

GFD.59 "OGSA profile definition" prescribes not only "OASIS standard"
but also "OASIS TC Committee Drafts" can be referenced from
Recommended Profile at the Proposed Recommendation stage of
publication.

However, OGSA-WG agreed to wait for WSRF specs become "OASIS standards"
since it is expected to happen at latest end of March.

Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Savas Parastatidis wrote:
> I am not familiar with GFD-I.59. From your description, is it right to
> assume that even the WS-RF-based profile is going to be informational
> given that WS-RF and related specs were not standards at the time the
> work on the profile started?
> 
> --
> Savas Parastatidis
> http://savas.parastatidis.name
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com]
>>Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:11 PM
>>To: Maguire_Tom at emc.com
>>Cc: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-wg at ggf.org; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey;
>>humphrey at cs.virginia.edu; gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu
>>Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design
>>efforts"
>>
>>Hi Tom,
>>
>>You are absolutely right. If the upcoming HPC profile refers to non-
>>standard spec(s), it should be categorized as "informational."
>>----
>>Hiro Kishimoto
>>
>>Maguire_Tom at emc.com wrote:
>>
>>>I appreciate and agree with the perspective that suggests that OGSA
>>>functionality be profiled using existing agreed upon specifications.
>>>Are you suggesting WS-Security, WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation, and
>>>WS-ReliableMessaging as those common, agreed upon, non-controversial
>>>specifications?  Some of these are at Standard (WS-Security), some
> 
> are
> 
>>>at committee draft (WS-ReliableMessaging) and some of them are at
>>>editor drafts (WS-Trust, WS-SecureConversation).  The GGF guidelines
>>>for OGSA Profile Definition (GFD-I.59) would require that a profile
>>>based on these specifications be classified as an Informational
>>>Profile (given the current state of the specifications).  Further I
>>>would like to point out that the normative thorn in the side here
>>
>>continues to be WS-Policy.
>>
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Tom
>>>
>>>Mobile: +1-845-729-4806
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>	From: owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg at ggf.org] On
> 
> Behalf
> 
>>>Of Marvin Theimer
>>>	Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:45 AM
>>>	To: ogsa-wg at ggf.org
>>>	Cc: Marvin Theimer; Savas Parastatidis; Tony Hey; Marty
> 
> Humphrey;
> 
>>>gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu
>>>	Subject: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design
>>>efforts"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>	Enclosed is a paper that advocates an additional set of
> 
> activities
> 
>>>that the authors believe that the OGSA working groups should engage
>>>in.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>	Broadly speaking, the OGSA and related working groups are
> 
> already
> 
>>>doing a bunch of important things:
>>>
>>>	*         There is broad exploration of the big picture,
>>>including enumeration of use cases, taxonomy of areas,
> 
> identification
> 
>>>of research issues, etc.
>>>
>>>	*         There is work going on in each of the horizontal areas
>>>that have been identified, such as EMS, data services, etc.
>>>
>>>	*         There is working going around individual
>>>specifications, such as BES, JSDL, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>	Given that individual specifications are beginning to come to
>>>fruition, the authors believe it is time to also start defining
>>>"vertical profiles" that precisely describe how groups of individual
>>>specifications should be employed to implement specific use cases in
>>>an interoperable manner.  The authors also believe that the process
> 
> of
> 
>>>defining these profiles offers an opportunity to "close the design
> 
> loop"
> 
>>>by relating the various on-going protocol and standards efforts back
>>>to the use cases in a very concrete manner.  This provides an
>>>end-to-end setting in which to identify holes and issues that might
>>>require additional protocols and/or (incremental) changes to
> 
> existing
> 
>>protocols.
>>
>>>The paper introduces both the general notion of doing focused
> 
> vertical
> 
>>>"design efforts" and then focuses on a specific vertical design
>>>effort, namely a minimal HPC design.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>	The paper derives a specific HPC design in a "first principles"
>>>manner since the authors believe that this increases the chances of
>>>identifying issues.  As a consequence, existing specifications and
> 
> the
> 
>>>activities of existing working groups are not mentioned and this
> 
> paper
> 
>>>is not an attempt to actually define a specifications profile.
> 
> Also,
> 
>>>the absence of references to existing work is not meant to imply
> 
> that
> 
>>>such work is in any way irrelevant or inappropriate.  The paper
> 
> should
> 
>>>be viewed as a first abstract attempt to propose a new kind of
>>>activity within OGSA.  The expectation is that future open
> 
> discussions
> 
>>>and publications will explore the concrete details of such a
> 
> proposal.
> 
>>>
>>>
>>>	This paper was recently sent to a few key individuals in order
> 
> to
> 
>>get
>>
>>>feedback from them before submitting it to the wider GGF community.
>>>Unfortunately that process took longer than intended and some
> 
> members
> 
>>>of the community may have already seen a copy of the paper without
>>>knowing the context within it was written.  This email should
>>>hopefully dispel any misconceptions that may have occurred.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>	For those people who will be around on for the F2F meetings on
>>>Friday, Marvin Theimer will be giving a talk on the contents of this
>>>paper at a time and place to be announced.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>	Marvin Theimer, Savas Parastatidis, Tony Hey, Marty Humphrey,
>>>Geoffrey Fox
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
>