White paper overview 4 th eIRG meeting June, 14 th 2004

1. White paper overview4th eIRG meetingJune, 14th 2004 Fotis Karayannis, On behalf of the Editorial Team CERN/GRNET fkara@grnet.gr, http://www.grnet.gr Mondorf - Luxembourg, June14th, 2005

2. Outline • Previous meetings directions & recommendations • Luxemburg progress • White paper work organization • White paper structure • Chapter outlines • Policy roadmap • Timeplan • List of Endorsements – Further actions?

3. Reminder of previous meetings’ directions and recommendations (1/2) Presented in the form of Action Points.. • General directions and/or comments received: • “..the scope needed to be broader..” i.e. not EGEE, HEP-specific • “..sensor and more general grids hardly mentioned…” • “..should be distributed well in advance…” • “..separate policy fromtechnical issues”..

4. Reminder of previous meetings’ directions and recommendations (2/2) • eIRG Den Haag endorsements: • “..notes the timely operation of an EGEE/LCG/OSG group working on a common multidisciplinary Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP). Consolidate the draft AUP” • “..formation of a forum…to support the study of Generic vs. Disciplinary Grids in order to “reduce duplication of efforts, but still pronounce unique demands from disciplinary user communities” • “ …stresses the importance of of deploying flexibly configurable and reliable end-to-end optical connections in parallel with the IP-routed services build upon the pan-European hierarchical model” • “..encourages work towards a common federation for academia and research institutes that ensures mutual recognition of the strength and validity of their authorization assertions” • “..gives high priority to the visibility of European infrastructures at venues such as the annual Supercomputing Conference organized in the US. …focus on creating greater global visibility of corresponding European venues. This could entail merging of some conferences to create critical mass and reach global impact.”

5. Luxembourg progress (1/3) • General directions and/or comments received • “..the scope needed to be broader..” i.e. not EGEE, HEP-specific • “..sensor and more general grids hardly mentioned…” • Another step forward: Towards a neutral approach. Use cases taken from big projects (as in User Support). Sensor grids included as an annex • Don’t give up the good work • “..should be distributed well in advance…” • Better than before…but still not good enough. Better planning needed! • Workshop should be taking place at least 2 months before the meeting! • “..separate policy from technical issues..” • A first attempt to divide policy aspects from technical background. Found more difficult than it sounded. • Section editors should keep this in mind beforehand!

6. Luxembourg progress (2/3) • eIRG Den Haag endorsements: • “..notes the timely operation of an EGEE/LCG/OSG group working on a common multidisciplinary Acceptable Usage Policy (AUP). Consolidate the draft AUP” • AUP section taken further • “..formation of a forum…to support the study of Generic vs. Disciplinary Grids in order to “reduce duplication of efforts, but still pronounce unique demands from disciplinary user communities” • Section appearing again – new approach taken. Recommendation not implemented! • “ …stresses the importance of of deploying flexibly configurable and reliable end-to-end optical connections in parallel with the IP-routed services build upon the pan-European hierarchical model” • Networking recommendation being worked out in GN2-GEANT2! Still a challenge for end-to-end connectivity. Need to be worked out further.

7. Luxembourg progress (3/3) • eIRG Den Haag endorsements (cont’d): • “..encourages work towards a common federation for academia and research institutes that ensures mutual recognition of the strength and validity of their authorization assertions” • Authentication Authorisation Infrastructure (AAI) taken further. Still much work to be done! • “..gives high priority to the visibility of European infrastructures at venues such as the annual Supercomputing Conference organized in the US. …focus on creating greater global visibility of corresponding European venues. This could entail merging of some conferences to create critical mass and reach global impact.” • On-going efforts for a stronger European participation to SC2005 • Not much on the “merging conferences” front

8. White paper work organization • Similar distributed approach as in the Den Haag version: • Autonomous section editors: Quick iteration • Funded / unfunded contributors secured by section editors • Spontaneous external contacts • eIRG virtual office supported by Presidency and EGEE NA5 • Editorial board: Matti Heikkurinen, Michiel Leenars, Hannelore Hammerle, Fotis Karayannis • Main difference: the e-Infrastructure workshop (Amsterdam 13 May) took place one month before the e-IRG meeting • Easier to maintain momentum and integrated feedback from the workshop BUT proven very short time period to develop the White Paper – At least 2 months needed! • Selected topics: • A set of common topics with the Den Haag version (Generic vs. Disciplinary Grids, AAI, Accounting, User Support, AUPs, Networking developments • New topics: Based on feedback received in the meetings (e.g. European Middleware Institute), Other topics felt to be important by the Presidency or the Editorial Board. The same topics with the Amsterdam workshop.

9. Overall status • Still version 1.1! i.e. very draft! • Many more topics selected • Paper was more open • eIRG members in the loop – Draft ToC sent to eIRG list for comments – Very few comments received • We encourage the eIRG members to provide contributions! • Projects support: EGEE, GEANT/GN2, DEISA, SEEGRID contributions through section editors (mostly unfunded effort) • Maturity of sections and corresponding recommendations varies • Recommendations are triggers for discussion! • Further comments / reviews needed • During and after the meeting – Proposed plan was to finalize deliverable by the end of June

10. Luxembourg Table of Contents (1/2) • 1. Executive summary • 2. The role of the eIRG in shaping the European Research Area • 3. Generic vs. Disciplinary Grids (Workshop) • 4. Towards an International Grid Organisation and National Grid Initiatives – NEW • 5. Authentication, Authorization, Accounting policies • 6. Legal Issues in e-Infrastructures – NEW (Workshop) • 7. Network Development and Grid Requirements (Workshop) • 8. User Support policies (Workshop) • 9. Towards a European Federated Middleware Institute – (NEW) • 10. Usage policies • 11. Advanced Computing Facilities – NEW (Workshop) • 12. Storage and Data Services – NEW (Workshop) • 13. Grid and Industry in the context of the European Research Programmes - NEW • 14. Policy roadmap

11. Luxembourg Table of Contents (2/2) • 15. Technical Appendix A – Research Networking – (NEW) • 16. Technical Appendix B – Supercomputing – (NEW) • 17. Technical Appendix C – Storage and Data Services – (NEW) • 18. Technical Appendix D – Sensor Grids – (NEW) • 19. Technical Appendix E - Accounting– (NEW) • 20. Technical Appendix F – User Support (GILDA, GGUS, Networking) – (NEW) • 21. Appendix A – Background and history of the White Papers • 22. Appendix B – List of Endorsements • 23. Appendix C – List of eIRG members • 24. Appendix D – Abbreviations used in the White Paper

12. Section 2 • The role of the eIRG in shaping the ERA – Kyriakos -Leif • Highlights the importance of the eIRG and the role played so far • Specifies the role of eIRG to develop e-Infrastructures in FP7 • Opportunities list and roadmap documents • Outlines e-IRG related initiatives • European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) • European Networking Policy Group (ENPG) • Trans European Research and Education Networking Association (TERENA) • National Research and Education Networks – NRENs (Policy Committee and Executive Committee) • Future role of e-IRG • On going effort: White Papers – Roadmap are live documents! • Open towards Industry?

13. Section 3 • General Purpose vs. Disciplinary Grids, Manuel Delfino, Anders Ynnerman • Refined terminology: • Grid & net infrastructure, Grids vs A Grid • Different analysis from Den Haag based on: • Desired organisation schemes, availability of resources, efficiency and cost of a Grid infrastructure • Analysis has to be worked out further to conclude • Den Haag recommendations still valid: • General purpose Grid technically and policy-wise difficult • Multidisciplinary Grids a good step forward, since they contribute to the elimination of duplication of efforts • Den Haag endorsement on “the formation of a related forum” not taken further. Nevertheless, issue is still highly visible on the agenda (workshop-white paper) • Level of maturity: Still growing..

14. Section 4 • International Grid Organisation (IGO) – National Grid Initiatives (NGIs), Nikos Vogiatzis, Fotis Karayannis • IGO-NGI model would resemble the DANTE-NREN model • DANTE central coordination body of pan-European infrastructure– NRENs official governmental institute established by the Ministries in each country running the Research Networks • Meant to provide sustainable scheme (infrastructure oriented - application neutral) • Such model currently adopted by some countries in EGEE/SEEGRID: • Greece/Hellasgrid run by GRNET, Romania – RoGrid run by ICI, Israel / IAG run by IUCC/TAU, SEEGRID project participants • It is easier to adopt this model in “green-field” regions • It is felt though that further brainstorming and discussions among the different stakeholders is needed • Plans to provide studies for each country in the EGEE2 proposal – Cooperation with the e-IRG will be essential • Level of maturity: Still growing..

15. Section 5 • Authentication, Authorisation, Accounting policies • AAI – Diego Lopez • Den Haag: e-IRG encourages work towards a common federation of interoperable authorisation frameworks: • Updates from Den Haag along these lines: • TERENA Task Force on Middleware (TF-EMC2) • GEANT2 AAI group (Shibboleth compliant) • GridShib • Recommendation: Support the establishment of the GEANT2 AAI as a superstructure integrating all AA federations and make current practices interoperable with the GEANT2 AAI (trans-national trust hub idea along the lines of the Cotswolds group idea) • Accounting – John Gordon – Kors Bos • Still technically immature • Review of state of the art and new frameworks in the Technical Appendix E (on-going) • Related standardisation groups referenced • Studies need to be carried out: best practices and use cases in projects and consortia, Grid market and Grid banking pilot studies, legislation issues, common vocabulary • Level of maturity: Still growing..

16. Section 6 • Legal Issues in e-Infrastructures: Kees Stuurman • New topic • Presented in Amsterdam workshop • List of issues identified • Such as Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Data protection, Competition Law issues, Liability of misuse, applicable law and jurisdiction • Recommendations: • Dialogue between technical and legal experts – In the form of a workshop • Prepare an inventory of prioritised issues • More permanent working group to follow • Analysis and evaluation of inventory list

17. Section 7 • Network Development and Grid requirements–Gigi Karmous-Edwards, GEANT2 consortium • Network developments are essential to meet Grid requirements (control and management planes) • Network technology evolves and this has to be taken into account • Integration of optical technologies with applications and Grid middleware is necessary • GEANT2 consortium views documented (taken from the GN2 opportunities list answers) • Recommendation on the above wavelength (bullets 1-2) • International connectivity - Kees Neggers, Dany Vandrome • International Global Connectivity is a multi-domain activity • Global connectivity is about inter-domain cooperation and interoperability • Recommendation on the above wavelength

18. Section 8 • User support policies: Frank Harris, Torsten Antoni, Klaus Ullmann, Karin Schauerhammer • User support services: • Education, Access to information, Application integration and support, Round the clock support (helpdesk-call center type) • Education: • Planning for resources for coordination and delivery of training • Access to Information: • Successful only if coordinated effort from all players – In addition, single point of entry needed for all users – simple interfaces • Application integration and support: • Planning for resources for application migration and further on-going support • Day-to-day support: • Development of round the clock support crucial. They should also be documented and discussed in standardisation bodies • Networking support and interaction with the Grid layer needed • Software development cycles support important • Overall recommendation: Planning of support of the grid infrastructure should allow for the continuity of support in national structures beyond the end of major grid projects

19. Section 9 • Towards a European Federated Middleware Institute: Tony Hey, Ognjen Prnjat • Secure and reliable middleware is a fundamental requirement for e-Infrastructures • Towards an OMII-Europe: (complementing the IGO idea which is more oriented towards the running of the infrastructure) • Supporting the community with high-quality software • Professional Software development process • Quality assurance • Software repository • Standardisation - Collaboration with related for a • Outreach - Training • Recommendation: • Endorse the principle of establishing a federated Middleware Institute to ensure the development of production-quality Grid m/w leveraging EC and national efforts across Europe

20. Section 10 • Usage Policies: Dave Kelsey • Updates since Den Haag documented as part of the Joint Security Policy Group (JSPG) (EGEE/LCG/OSG) • New trend to have a single simple User AUP agreed by all users • Any diversity of acceptable or unacceptable use is documented in a Virtual Organisation-specific way. • Each VO prepares its own application/VO-oriented policy and AUP • Grid infrastructure management and resource centres consider whether they want to allow each VO to operate on the Grid • Recommendation: Draft user AUP provided

21. Section 11 • Advanced computing facilities: Patrick Aerts, Victor Alessandrini • European current landscape: • National large scale facilities (as presented in the Academic Supercomputing in Europe) • DEISA FP6 project • Two different visions exist: • Infrastructure based on disciplinary needs (e.g. a system for climatology) • Infrastructure based on computer architectures (64-bit vs. 32-bit, low latency vs. high-bandwidth, capability vs. capacity computing etc.) • Recommendation produced during Amsterdam workshop: • In favor of the model based on computer architectures, not on disciplines, provided the issue of user support is well addressed at a European scale

22. Section 12 • Storage and Data Services: Anwar Osseyran • Recommendations: • Establishment of a distributed shared network of European Data Centres, maintaining digital research data and other material and keeping them for current and future generations of users (storage banks) • Coordination of the data management software development efforts across Europe and to stimulate P2P and Google-like technologies to be applied in research for data management purposes

23. Section 13 • Grid and Industry in the context of the European Research Programmes: Kyriakos Baxevanidis, Michiel Leenars • Transformation of research into commercial uptakes into products and services (innovation) is a central objective of European Research Programmes • Two main areas: • Vertical approach through the FP6 thematic priorities (like IST) • Horizontal approach through the FP6 research infrastructures area • Recommendations: • The eIRG invites representatives of European enterprises and other commercial stakeholders to identify expectations and needs from the business community and the contributions they expect in order to be able to invest. eIRG also invites SMEs to contribute their views • The eIRG wishes to be more proactive in exposing its work to industry and e-business

24. Section 14 • Policy Roadmap: Matti, Fotis • Summary of directions from each section

25. Timeplan - procedure • During this meeting (Luxembourg, June 2005): • Feedback from eIRG • Reflect the recommendations as agreed during the eIRG meeting • Section editors and/or workshop chairs invited to provide further updates according to eIRG comments received • Incorporate eIRG comments by the end of June (section editors and editorial board) • Update inventory of endorsement statements and other input in the Appendices • Editorial team to circulate final draft to the eIRG at the end of June • Allow 2 weeks for comments for the eIRG (until the 15th of July)

26. Summary of endorsements and/or further actions

27. Thanks! • mailto:fkara@grnet.gr • EGEE NA5 mailing list • mailto:project-eu-egee-na5@cern.ch • e-IRG site • www.e-irg.org • EGEE NA5 agenda pages • http://agenda.cern.ch/displayLevel.php?fid=194