[UR-WG] ur-wg Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10
Xiaoyu Chen
xc2 at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Wed Mar 24 10:02:54 CDT 2010
Hello Wolfgang:
Defining a standard metric for license has been discussed in UR working group for long time, and we believe it is an important metric that need to be standardised. However, we are keen to get different usage scenarios before proposing a standard metric. Could you please come up an example metric definition or XML element example based on your use case?
regards!
X. Chen
On 24 Mar 2010, at 14:00, <ur-wg-request at ogf.org>
wrote:
> Send ur-wg mailing list submissions to
> ur-wg at ogf.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ur-wg-request at ogf.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ur-wg-owner at ogf.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of ur-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: OGF28 Schedule (Wolfgang Ziegler)
> 2. Re: OGF28 Schedule (Johannes Reetz)
> 3. Re: OGF28 Schedule (Andrea Cristofori)
> 4. Re: OGF28 Schedule (Andrea Cristofori)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:23:32 +0100
> From: Wolfgang Ziegler <Wolfgang.Ziegler at scai.fraunhofer.de>
> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
> To: Xiaoyu Chen <Xiaoyu.Chen at brunel.ac.uk>
> Cc: ur-wg at ogf.org
> Message-ID: <4BA90724.5030103 at scai.fraunhofer.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi all,
>
> if we are going for UR2.0 spec I would like to remind that
> we need a way to express license cost in a UR.
>
>
>
> Am/On 23.03.10 17:11, Xiaoyu Chen schrieb/wrote:
>> Hello John:
>>
>> It's a good idea to have a UR 2.0 specification, but I won't recommend a separate storage usage record. In OGF 21, Donal and I came up with a long-term roadmap for UR 2.0 (as attached). How about come up with some storage metrics rather than another usage record template for storage. I will try to squeeze sometime for the UR core schema, which abstract common template for different types of usage records, computing, storage, service, etc.
>>
>> PS: I've moved to university of Southampton (email: xc2 at ecs.soton.ac.uk) and got a project deadline in May. But I will try my best to input something. I also asked for replacement of my chairship.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards!
>>
>> X. Chen
>> --------
>> LSL
>> Electronics and Computer Science
>> University of Southampton
>> SO17 1BJ
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> +44 238 0591 523
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org on behalf of john.gordon at stfc.ac.uk
>> Sent: Tue 23/03/2010 15:42
>> To: andrea.cristofori at cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg at ogf.org
>> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
>>
>> Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either
>> fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new
>> standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR
>> UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord
>> is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type
>> StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global
>> attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord.
>>
>> We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were
>> defining Andrea.
>>
>> John
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
>> Of
>>> Andrea Cristofori
>>> Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49
>>> To: ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to
>>> discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move
>>> to more specific things.
>>>
>>> - Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the
>>> existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are
>>> needed
>>> in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new
>>> versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not
>>> needed
>>> to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed
>>> with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for
>>> the
>>> Storage.
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> - What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not
>>> directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include
>>> everything
>>> in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to
>>> finalize an update before moving to other things?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>> P.S.: here is the link
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As
>> soon
>>> as
>>>>> we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we
>> can
>>>>> continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to
>>> 5:30 pm
>>>>>> Location: HGB-A 016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>>> - UR for Storage Accounting discussion
>>>>>> - AUR discussion
>>>>>> - AOB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me
>>> know.
>>>>>> I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
>>> there
>>>>>> that can be a starting point for the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrea Cristofori
>>> INFN-CNAF
>>> Viale Berti Pichat 6/2
>>> 40127 Bologna
>>> Italy
>>> Tel. : +39-051-6092920
>>> Skype: andrea-cnaf
>>>
>>> --
>>> ur-wg mailing list
>>> ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ur-wg mailing list
>>> ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>
> --
> Wolfgang Ziegler www.scai.fraunhofer.de/ziegler.html
> Fraunhofer-Institute for Algorithms and Scientific Computing (SCAI)
> Schloss Birlinghoven, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany
> Tel: +49 2241 14 2258; Fax: +49 2241 14 42258
>
> SmartLM - Software License Technology for Grids, Clouds, SOA: www.smartlm.eu
>
> CoreGRID Network of Excellence www.coregrid.net
> Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:32:36 +0100
> From: Johannes Reetz <johannes.reetz at rzg.mpg.de>
> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
> To: ur-wg at ogf.org
> Message-ID: <4BA90944.9050706 at rzg.mpg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Andrea, John, Jules,...
>
> Am 23.03.2010 16:58, schrieb Jules Wolfrat:
>> John, Andrea,
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>>> Behalf Of john.gordon at stfc.ac.uk
>>> Sent: 23 March 2010 16:42
>>> To: andrea.cristofori at cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
>>>
>>> Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either
>>> fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new
>>> standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR
>>> UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which
>>> JobUsageRecord
>>> is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type
>>> StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global
>>> attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord.
>>>
>> So, apparently the choice already was made, with good arguments!
>>
> I am not sure whether a choice has already been made, but I like to
> second John's and Jules' statements and arguments here.
>
> As far as I can see, the general concept of the usage of compute
> resources is orthogonal to the general concept of the usage of storage
> resources.
> This is what we discovered and discussed step by step during the meeting
> last week - I think.
>
> Of course we will have go through the details and should analyze some
> variety of realistic use cases before we should make the final design
> decisions.
>
> However, currently I have no doubt that we might end up with a resource
> usage model that will require for different schemas, one for the
> description of the consuption of compute resources where the attributes
> startTime and endTime make sense and another for the current consumption
> storage resources which could be represented by long-time archives as
> well as by short.time storages.
>
> Regards,
> Johannes
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jules
>>
>>> We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were
>>> defining Andrea.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>>>>
>>> Behalf
>>> Of
>>>
>>>> Andrea Cristofori
>>>> Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49
>>>> To: ur-wg at ogf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to
>>>> discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we
>>>>
>>> move
>>>
>>>> to more specific things.
>>>>
>>>> - Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties
>>>>
>>> to the
>>>
>>>> existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are
>>>> needed
>>>> in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new
>>>> versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not
>>>> needed
>>>> to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us
>>>>
>>> agreed
>>>
>>>> with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record
>>>>
>>> for
>>>
>>>> the
>>>> Storage.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> - What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property
>>>>
>>> not
>>>
>>>> directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include
>>>> everything
>>>> in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try
>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>> finalize an update before moving to other things?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Andrea
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> P.S.: here is the link
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday.
>>>>>>
>>> As
>>> soon
>>>
>>>> as
>>>>
>>>>>> we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file,
>>>>>>
>>> we
>>> can
>>>
>>>>>> continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm
>>>>>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>> 5:30 pm
>>>>
>>>>>>> Location: HGB-A 016.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>>>> - UR for Storage Accounting discussion
>>>>>>> - AUR discussion
>>>>>>> - AOB
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to add or change something on the agenda please
>>>>>>>
>>> let me
>>>
>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people
>>>>>>>
>>> present
>>>
>>>> there
>>>>
>>>>>>> that can be a starting point for the discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Andrea Cristofori
>>>> INFN-CNAF
>>>> Viale Berti Pichat 6/2
>>>> 40127 Bologna
>>>> Italy
>>>> Tel. : +39-051-6092920
>>>> Skype: andrea-cnaf
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ur-wg mailing list
>>>> ur-wg at ogf.org
>>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Scanned by iCritical.
>>> --
>>> ur-wg mailing list
>>> ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>>>
>> --
>> ur-wg mailing list
>> ur-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> --- Dr. Johannes Reetz ----------------------------------------------------------
> Rechenzentrum Garching (RZG) der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft / MPI f?r Plasmaphysik
> Garching Computing Centre of the Max Planck Society / MPI for Plasma Physics
> Boltzmannstrasse 2, D-85748 Garching, Bldg D2 office #315
> tel +49-89-3299-2199 fax +49-89-3299-1301 http://www.rzg.mpg.de
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:57:11 +0100
> From: Andrea Cristofori <andrea.cristofori at cnaf.infn.it>
> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
> To: Jules Wolfrat <wolfrat at sara.nl>
> Cc: "ur-wg at ogf.org" <ur-wg at ogf.org>
> Message-ID: <4BAA1A37.5040901 at cnaf.infn.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi Jules,
>
>
>
> On 03/23/2010 04:53 PM, Jules Wolfrat wrote:
>> Dear Andrea,
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Andrea Cristofori
>>> Sent: 23 March 2010 15:49
>>> To: ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to
>>> discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we
>>> move
>>> to more specific things.
>>>
>>> - Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to
>>> the
>>> existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are
>>> needed
>>> in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new
>>> versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not
>>> needed
>>> to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us
>>> agreed
>>> with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record
>>> for the
>>> Storage.
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>> I think it is indeed a good idea to continue this basic discussion first and reach consensus.
>> Here is my thinking.
>> The basic question is if you really are describing different things, or properties of totally different objects?
>> Then probably the answer should be yes, because it's CPU usage vs storage (and networks can be another).
>> Still you can use a common schema and use for instance a type property saying what usage is published.
>> The problem in using a common schema can arise if some property has a different meaning depending on the type of usage. And also if you discuss changes you always have to keep in mind the different types, which may block progress.
>>
>
> Probably we could avoid a property that says which kind of usage is
> published if we can describe unique properties that apply only for a
> certain kind of record and common property that apply to all with the
> same meaning.
>
>> So, probably separate schemas will be the best roadmap in the end.
>> Probably it would be best to collect the different arguments and then try to decide?
>>
>
> After seeing the presentation that Chen posted I'd like to know if a
> decision was already taken and we should skip this part or if nothing
> has been decided yet.
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jules
>>
>>> - What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not
>>> directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include
>>> everything
>>> in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to
>>> finalize an update before moving to other things?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>
>>>> P.S.: here is the link
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As
>>>>>
>>> soon as
>>>
>>>>> we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we
>>>>>
>>> can
>>>
>>>>> continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm
>>>>>>
>>> to 5:30 pm
>>>
>>>>>> Location: HGB-A 016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>>> - UR for Storage Accounting discussion
>>>>>> - AUR discussion
>>>>>> - AOB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let
>>>>>>
>>> me know.
>>>
>>>>>> I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
>>>>>>
>>> there
>>>
>>>>>> that can be a starting point for the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrea Cristofori
>>> INFN-CNAF
>>> Viale Berti Pichat 6/2
>>> 40127 Bologna
>>> Italy
>>> Tel. : +39-051-6092920
>>> Skype: andrea-cnaf
>>>
>>> --
>>> ur-wg mailing list
>>> ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>>>
>
>
> --
> Andrea Cristofori
> INFN-CNAF
> Viale Berti Pichat 6/2
> 40127 Bologna
> Italy
> Tel. : +39-051-6092920
> Skype: andrea-cnaf
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:57:14 +0100
> From: Andrea Cristofori <andrea.cristofori at cnaf.infn.it>
> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
> To: ur-wg at ogf.org
> Message-ID: <4BAA1A3A.6040207 at cnaf.infn.it>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi Chen,
>
> I didn't know about this presentation. But, in fact, I was also in
> favour of a 2.0 version that included as many thing as possible instead
> of going through a series of intermediate release that each add some
> specific things. Of course we should try to do it in a way that we are
> not overwhelmed by too many things but at least to produce something
> that is quite general in a reasonable amount of time.
>
> As it was also pointed out we should be careful and try to avoid
> attributes that can be used in different ways in different condition so
>
> Andrea
>
>
>
>
> On 03/23/2010 05:11 PM, Xiaoyu Chen wrote:
>> Hello John:
>>
>> It's a good idea to have a UR 2.0 specification, but I won't recommend a separate storage usage record. In OGF 21, Donal and I came up with a long-term roadmap for UR 2.0 (as attached). How about come up with some storage metrics rather than another usage record template for storage. I will try to squeeze sometime for the UR core schema, which abstract common template for different types of usage records, computing, storage, service, etc.
>>
>> PS: I've moved to university of Southampton (email: xc2 at ecs.soton.ac.uk) and got a project deadline in May. But I will try my best to input something. I also asked for replacement of my chairship.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best Regards!
>>
>> X. Chen
>> --------
>> LSL
>> Electronics and Computer Science
>> University of Southampton
>> SO17 1BJ
>> United Kingdom
>>
>> +44 238 0591 523
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org on behalf of john.gordon at stfc.ac.uk
>> Sent: Tue 23/03/2010 15:42
>> To: andrea.cristofori at cnaf.infn.it; ur-wg at ogf.org
>> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
>>
>> Andrea, at OGF28 someone suggested that we had a choice of either
>> fitting the storage record into the existing UR or defining a new
>> standard. I do not think that this is the case. The existing UR
>> UsageRecord element has a UsageRecordType type of which JobUsageRecord
>> is a defined type. I think we need to define a new type
>> StorageUsageRecord which can contain some of the existing Global
>> attributes defined for the JobUsageRecord.
>>
>> We could also define a FileUsageRecord to cover the case you were
>> defining Andrea.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:ur-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
>>>
>> Of
>>
>>> Andrea Cristofori
>>> Sent: 23 March 2010 14:49
>>> To: ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [UR-WG] OGF28 Schedule
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> While waiting for the minute I'll suggest we can already start to
>>> discuss one basic topic that came up during the meeting before we move
>>> to more specific things.
>>>
>>> - Since the beginning I was thinking just to add new properties to the
>>> existing UR definition. This would allow to choose those that are
>>> needed
>>> in each situation and reuse those that are common. In case of new
>>> versions of the UR definition if we update a property then is not
>>> needed
>>> to update all the definition if this is common. Not all of us agreed
>>> with that and it was proposed to create a different usage record for
>>> the
>>> Storage.
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> - What would you prefer to do in case we discuss other property not
>>> directly connected with storage accounting? Should we include
>>> everything
>>> in the discussion now or concentrate only on this topic and try to
>>> finalize an update before moving to other things?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/18/2010 05:19 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>
>>>> P.S.: here is the link
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/?id=2029
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 03/18/2010 05:15 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have uploaded the slide I presented in Munich last Monday. As
>>>>>
>> soon
>>
>>> as
>>>
>>>>> we check the minute of the discussion I will upload the file, we
>>>>>
>> can
>>
>>>>> continue the discussion and decide how to proceed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/10/2010 04:40 PM, Andrea Cristofori wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a session scheduled for Monday, March 15 from 4:00 pm to
>>>>>>
>>> 5:30 pm
>>>
>>>>>> Location: HGB-A 016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agenda:
>>>>>> - UR for Storage Accounting discussion
>>>>>> - AUR discussion
>>>>>> - AOB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to add or change something on the agenda please let me
>>>>>>
>>> know.
>>>
>>>>>> I'm plannig to prepare some slide to show to the people present
>>>>>>
>>> there
>>>
>>>>>> that can be a starting point for the discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrea Cristofori
>>> INFN-CNAF
>>> Viale Berti Pichat 6/2
>>> 40127 Bologna
>>> Italy
>>> Tel. : +39-051-6092920
>>> Skype: andrea-cnaf
>>>
>>> --
>>> ur-wg mailing list
>>> ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ur-wg mailing list
>>> ur-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>
>
> --
> Andrea Cristofori
> INFN-CNAF
> Viale Berti Pichat 6/2
> 40127 Bologna
> Italy
> Tel. : +39-051-6092920
> Skype: andrea-cnaf
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ur-wg/attachments/20100324/4be40dcb/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> ur-wg mailing list
> ur-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ur-wg
>
> End of ur-wg Digest, Vol 21, Issue 10
> *************************************
kind regards!
X. Chen
LSL
School of Electronic and Computer Science
University of Southampton
University Road
SO17 1BJ
Southampton
Tel: +44(0)238 0591 523
http://tecires.ecs.soton.ac.uk
More information about the ur-wg
mailing list