[graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
Philipp Wieder
ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de
Fri Jan 13 03:08:00 CST 2006
Dear Toshi,
thank you for maintaining the list. Item 38 is also done, except for the
following references (see also my previous email):
- ComputeJobs
- WS-BaseNotification
- XML-ns
These are not used within the text yet, but I left them in case people
think that they should.
Best regards, Philipp.
Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
> Apologies everyone for not showing up on this week's telecon.
> (Had intended to but had dozed off....)
>
> Please find attached the excel comments list which
> 1)At last includes all the comments within the comments period.
> 2)Tried to reflect the status of this week's telecon.
>
> Best Regards
> Toshi
> -----
> Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之
> Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC
> 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku,
> Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan
> Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035)
> Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg at ggf.org]
>> On Behalf Of Philipp Wieder
>> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:31 AM
>> To: graap-wg at gridforum.org
>> Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> please find the updated version of the spec. at:
>> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-Agre
> ementSpecificationDraft.doc/en/22
>> Further comments inline.
>>
>> Philipp.
>>
>> Jim Pruyne wrote:
>>> Attached...
>>>
>>> --- Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>> Notes from Jan. 11 Teleconference
>>> ---------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> Attendees
>>> ---------
>>>
>>> Wolfgang Ziegler
>>> Heiko Ludwig
>>> Asit Dan
>>> Jim Pruyne
>>> Philipp Wieder
>>>
>>>
>>> Agenda Items
>>> ------------
>>>
>>> - GGF: No schedule has been posted yet.
>>> * One session on spec. updates prior to GGF16
>>> * Two more sessions of implementation presentations, continuing
>>> discussions from presentations from previous GGF.
>>>
>>> - OGSA F2F:
>>> * Jim will plan to attend for a couple hours
>>> * Will there be any feedback on the spec. through this? Philipp:
>>> perhaps not as they look only to consume based on last F2F.
>>>
>>> - Wolfgang provided feedback to GGF Office on status of deliverables
>>> as requested by Joel.
>>>
>>> - Comments:
>>> - Missing references: Philipp to do this in the next day, and
>>> re-upload
>> Done.
>>> - To Remove: SNAP
>> Done.
>>> - Also to update to the proper link for various specs.
>> Done.
>>
>>> - Flexibility of WS-A. comment:
>>> - 1. We don't think the current WS-Agreement prohibits what he's
>>> suggesting, but we also don't define it.
>>> - 2. Basically DoS attack concerns. Agreed, that this
>> might be a
>>> nice thing to be able to do, but we consider it outside the
>>> scope of WS-Agreement. Many of these issues are
>> true for any
>>> web service, and not specific to WS-Agreement,
>> though how one
>>> searches the possible agreement space is somewhat more
>>> relevant.
>>> - 3. We specifically restricted to 2 parties to avoid specific
>>> remediation of multiple parties. That is, who specifically
>>> is at fault when there are more than two parties
>> with specific
>>> responsibilities to one another. Therefore, we
>> limit WS-Agreement
>>> to two party.
>>> - 4. Agreed that a library service is useful, but it is outside
>>> the scope of WS-Agreement. For signing, and
>> authentication, other
>>> general practices for web services should be applicable.
>>>
>>> - Discovery of compatible agreement parties
>>> - There is some hint as to the valid languages in the template
>>> based on the definition of namespaces. That is, an initiator
>>> should be sure that all namespaces declared in the
>> template are
>>> understood. However, this seems like a good point, and the
>>> suggestion seems valid. Our current thinking is to consider
>>> this in a next version based on some experience with
>> the current
>>> version. It may be that some practice like this will emerge
>>> which we could incorporate in a future version. The reference
>>> to a similar use in wsrp does help us to see a model
>> that might
>>> be used.
>>>
>>> - "sorry for the late post" to be addressed on future call due to
>>> time constraints.
>>>
>>> - "several comments"
>>> - 1. Version will come from reference, and as needed in the
>>> specification name. Philipp to update along with
>> references.
>> Done.
>>> - 2. Already has been addressed. Philipp to double check.
>> Done.
>>> - 3. Heiko to investigate status.
>>> - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing
>> references" comment.
>> Yes, that is correct.
>>
>> I included some new references:
>> - WSDL
>> - XML Schema
>> - RFC2119
>>
>> In addition, I marked some references within the document
>> which, to my opinion, have to be used within the text or
>> which have to be removed if not used at all. I suggest that
>> people check whether this is necessary.
>> This includes:
>> - ComputeJobs
>> - WS-BaseNotification
>> - XML-ns
>> This covers also "several comments", issue 7.
>>
>> Furthermore I tried to bring the references into the right
>> order (depending on their first appearance).
>>
More information about the graap-wg
mailing list