1 / 15

GRAAP-WG Sessions

GRAAP-WG Sessions. OGF21, Seattle October 16 　‘０７ Wolfgang Ziegler wolfgang.ziegler@scai.frainhofer.de Philipp Wieder philipp.wieder@udo.edu. GGF Intellectual Property Policy.

deanne
Download Presentation

GRAAP-WG Sessions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GRAAP-WG Sessions OGF21, Seattle October 16　‘０７ Wolfgang Ziegler wolfgang.ziegler@scai.frainhofer.de Philipp Wieder philipp.wieder@udo.edu

  2. GGF Intellectual Property Policy All statements related to the activities of the GGF and addressed to the GGF are subject to all provisions of Appendix B of GFD-C.1, which grants to the GGF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in GGF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to any GGF working group or portion thereof, Where the GFSG knows of rights, or claimed rights, the GGF secretariat shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the GFSG of the relevant GGF document(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. The working group or research group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the GGF secretariat in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect advancement of document, except that the GFSG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be recorded by the GGF Secretariat, and made available. The GFSG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in any GFD published containing the specification. 2

  3. Sessions planned • GRAAP #1, October 16, 9 am - 10:30 am • Session focussing on discussion on Implementation & Interoperability - state and issues • GRAAP #2, October 16, 11 am - 12:30 am • Discussion on term language issues • GRAAP #3, October 16, 1:30 pm - 3:00 pm • Discussion of WS-Agreement Negotiation 3

  4. Agenda GRAAP #1 Session focussing on discussion on Implementation & Interoperability - state and issues • Agenda bashing • Wrap up since last OGF • GRAAP infrastructure (mailing list, wiki) experience made with the wiki what should we use for which purpose • Implementation & interoperability: state, issues, next steps, definitions of milestones 4

  5. Wrap up since last OGF • Discussions on the mailing list on Negotiation issues • Updating the Wiki • Improved structure, more content • Survey on Usage of SLAs for Resource Management and Scheduling • Extended version available as CoreGRID Technical Report TR-0096 • WS-Agreement implementations in the Wiki • Grid 2007 Workshop on Usage of Service Level Agreements in Grids • Meeting of several GRAAP members during Grid 2007 • Planning of work on interoperability to be done before OGF21 • Work on interoperability between CCS and MSS 5

  6. GRAAP infrastructure • Experience made with the wiki • What should we use for which purpose 6

  7. Implementation & interoperability • State • Oliver, Dominic to report • Issues • Oliver, Dominic to report • Next steps • Document describing the interoperability scenarios and the level of interoperability (will be submitted to the OGF document process). • Structure & outline should be ready after OGF20 • Should be done today • Writing tea • Definitions of milestones • Time needed to run the two WS-Agreement implementatiions against each other • Contribution to GIN at SC2007? 7

  8. Agenda GRAAP #2 Discussion on term language issues • Agenda bashing • Collaboration/Synchronising with JSDL developments like JSDL next version/extensions • Microspecs for Network, Licenses, KPI 8

  9. Implementation/Interoperability discussion WSRF (base faults, resource properties) and WSA are critical: different versions & different support in hosting environments Name spaces are different Level of interoperabillity to achieve? Schema level, minimal set of terms for “hello world” create document describing the interoperability scenarios that will be submitted to the OGF document process. Structure & outline should be ready after OGF20 Oliver, Wolfgang, Dominic, Omer -> time tbd in the break after GRAAP #3 GT4 expected to migrate to the newest version of WSRF & WSA, but no schedule available on the website -> contact Globus Alliance people during OGF20 Template generation Repository or dynamic on demand How to create an ID for a template from a repository -> static ID 9

  10. Implementation/Interoperability discussion 2 Similarities in the AssessGrid and VIOLA implementation could be used for first tests on the functional aspects, SORMA to contribute SDTs in common? Based on JSDL, should work, guarantee terms however are completely different BEinGrid: most probably based on (modified) WS-Agreement NextGRID: similar protocol but different language TrustCom GridTrust Organise a telecon with these projects, after restructering the google doc 10

  11. Use-cases for dynamic SLAs and negotiation 1) How to create Agreements to minimise negotioation (e.g. using constraints, functions) needed to converge 2) How to re-negotiate an existing agreement, both client and provider driven Could become difficult when there are conflicting parties Probably dependent on the “cost” of re.negotiation Optimistic and pessimistic scenarios, recovering from failure or offering more service to the user SLAs for optimising flops per watt (evolving use case: Intel study, SwissGrid) Are dynamic SLA useful? In a Grid with some economic model below: yes If not all requirements could be fulfilled during the initial creation of the SLA and the service provider laster has additional resources/capabilities Network providers: Ipsphere plans to use OGSA protocols, WSRF, objective: automatic negotiation of SLAa OGSA session on SLTs for ByteIO and BES 4pm To start work on negotiation begin with 1) and extend to 2) later Creation constraints to indicate fixed/negotiable terms Provide protocols for bilateral negotiation to select from Survey on protocols? Shamima will send a paper of 2002 Toshi tp provide a very simple micro spec for 2) Omer to provide something on 1) after OGF21 11

  12. Agenda GRAAP #3 Discussion of WS-Agreement Negotiation • Agenda bashing • Discussion of workdone and existing approaches • Presentation of current work by Michael Parkin • Work presented in previous workshops • Selection of use-cases • Discussion and agreement on paperwork to start, contents and main writers 12

  13. Discussion of workdone and existing approaches • Presentation of current work by Michael Parkin • Work presented in previous workshops • Need to select relevant contributions and to extract approaches first • Work received recently from Sebastian Hudert • A Proposal for a Web Services Agreement Negotiation Protocol Framework 13

  14. Selection of use-cases Some are in the Wiki: • Neotiation of resource availability • VIOLA/PHOSPHORUS use case • Re-negotiarion • Reserving More Resources • Extension of Agreement Expiration Time • Asking for Releasing Resources which had been Agreed Upon Should also have a section on use-cases where negotiation makes less or no sense 14

  15. Paperwork to start now • Discussion and agreement on paperwork to start, contents and main writers 15

More Related