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

Tue Feb 21 04:57:02 CST 2006

Savas,
Good to hear from you!  What I meant was that 'at the current time' a
profile would be classified as informational because of the status of
some of the specifications.  I expect that most of those specifications
will be at Committee Draft before the profile is published.  The one
sticky point would be WS-Policy.  Currently some of the specs reference
WS-Policy.  Near as I can tell it is not 'yet' in any standards body.
Do you know what the plans are there?

Thanks,
Tom

Mobile: +1-845-729-4806

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiro Kishimoto [mailto:hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 12:47 AM
> To: Savas Parastatidis
> Cc: Maguire, Tom; Marvin Theimer; ogsa-wg at ggf.org; Tony Hey;
> humphrey at cs.virginia.edu; gcf at grids.ucs.indiana.edu
> Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Paper proposing "evolutionary vertical design
> efforts"
> 
> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >