From jim_pruyne at hp.com  Wed Jan 11 03:36:29 2006
From: jim_pruyne at hp.com (Jim Pruyne)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 03:36:29 -0600
Subject: [graap-wg] telecon on 1/11
Message-ID: <43C4D19D.4040600@hp.com>

We will have a telecon. on Wed. morning/evening. Dial-in numbers will be 
the same.
 The time is:
9:00AM Central Time US (GMT-0600, I think)
which should be:
10:00AM Eastern Time US
1500 UK
1600 Germany
midnight Japan
2200 Thailand

Phone Number: 866-673-8466 in the US. 702-477-6031 for those outside the US.
 Conference code #8578310.

Topics to be touched on include, next GGF, OGSA Face-to-Face next week, 
and the end of public comment for WS-Agreement.

--- Jim




From jim_pruyne at hp.com  Wed Jan 11 10:03:07 2006
From: jim_pruyne at hp.com (Jim Pruyne)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:03:07 -0600
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
Message-ID: <43C52C3B.9000400@hp.com>

Attached...

--- Jim


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Jan1105-minutes.txt
Url: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060111/bf401159/attachment.txt 

From maclaren at cct.lsu.edu  Wed Jan 11 10:14:35 2006
From: maclaren at cct.lsu.edu (Jon MacLaren)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:14:35 -0600
Subject: [graap-wg] Out of the Past - the GRAAP use cases
Message-ID: <369A1918-E195-4001-B625-41A3AF85EC15@cct.lsu.edu>

All,

At Boston, there was a resolution to push the Use Case document  
through the document pipeline.  I can't see that this been submitted  
(or discussed) yet.

The document is in a good enough state to be pushed into the pipeline  
now (after updating of the boilerplate text).  I'd be happy to do the  
necessary work to get this done - it should've been done a long time  
ago, (so long ago, that it's partially my fault that it didn't get  
done!)

Objections, comments?  If I don't hear anything negative by the 17th  
of January, I'll go ahead and do it anyway.

Cheers,

Jon.




From hludwig at us.ibm.com  Wed Jan 11 10:55:57 2006
From: hludwig at us.ibm.com (Heiko Ludwig)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:55:57 -0500
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
In-Reply-To: <43C52C3B.9000400@hp.com>
Message-ID: <OF7F2DB3E6.E7548687-ON852570F3.005C077B-852570F3.005D03EC@us.ibm.com>

In response to the comment

  - "several comments"; action item 3:

The XQueryX standard (XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)) became a 
candidate recommendation in November. The reference should be: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/xqueryx/ Let's use this reference. 

Heiko


-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
hludwig at us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160,  mob. +1 646 675 8469
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/





Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne at hp.com> 
Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
01/11/2006 11:03 AM

To
GRAAP-WG <graap-wg at gridforum.org>
cc

Subject
[graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon






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 
    - To Remove: SNAP
    - Also to update to the proper link for various specs.

  - 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.
    - 2. Already has been addressed.  Philipp to double check.
    - 3. Heiko to investigate status.
    - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060111/8c1d4b5f/attachment.html 

From ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de  Wed Jan 11 14:05:45 2006
From: ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de (ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de)
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:05:45 +0100
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
Message-ID: <5c11c58286.582865c11c@fz-juelich.de>

Hi,

I will incorporate it updating the references.

Best regards, Philipp.

----- Original Message -----
From: Heiko Ludwig <hludwig at us.ibm.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon

> In response to the comment
> 
>  - "several comments"; action item 3:
> 
> The XQueryX standard (XML Syntax for XQuery 1.0 (XQueryX)) became 
> a 
> candidate recommendation in November. The reference should be: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xqueryx/ Let's use this reference. 
> 
> Heiko
> 
> 
> -----
> Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
> hludwig at us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160,  mob. +1 646 675 8469
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne at hp.com> 
> Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
> 01/11/2006 11:03 AM
> 
> To
> GRAAP-WG <graap-wg at gridforum.org>
> cc
> 
> Subject
> [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 
>    - To Remove: SNAP
>    - Also to update to the proper link for various specs.
> 
>  - 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.
>    - 2. Already has been addressed.  Philipp to double check.
>    - 3. Heiko to investigate status.
>    - 4., 5., 6., 7. Are covered by the "Missing references" comment.
> 
> 
> 




From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com  Wed Jan 11 20:18:54 2006
From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:18:54 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] meeting schedule update (Re: [ogsa-wg] Ad hoc calls on Jan. 12th)
In-Reply-To: <43C59A9D.5040109@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <43C59A9D.5040109@jp.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <43C5BC8E.7070109@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi all,

Based on the morning discussion, I've switched ByteIO and OGSA-data
in the Thursday morning.

There are two more the last minutes change requests we should discuss
tomorrow;

- Thursday afternoon
Switch GRAAP joint session and Arch & Glossary 1.5 session, since Jim
Pruyne will come mid afternoon.
- Wednesday afternoon
Move WS-management Profile discussion from Friday Morning to Wednesday
afternoon and push naming session later.

https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2006Jan-OGSA-F2F-agenda

Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We will have an ad hoc call for F2F meeting preparation
> on Thursday. The following is a proposed agenda.
> 
> ATTENTION: day of week, time, dial-in number are all different.
> 
> Date: Jan. 12th Thursday
> Time: 8-10pm (CST) = 6-8pm (PST) = 11am-1pm JST = 2-4am UK
> 
> The dial-in number:
> US Toll number:  +1 408-961-6509 (San Jose) and
>                  +1 718-354-1071 (New York)
> UK Toll number:  +44 (0)207 365-5269
> JP Toll number:  +81 (0)3 3570 8183
> The pass code:   4371991
> 
> Screen share service will be provided.
>   URL:         http://ogsa.glance.net
>   Session key: 0112
> See more explanation:
> http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/ogsa-wg/2004/06/msg00077.html
> 
> 1) Early discussion (10 min)
>         Note taker assignment
>         Roll call
>         Telecon minutes approval (Dec. 19)
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/minutes20051219/en/1
>         Agenda bashing
> 
> 2) CDDLM-WG joint call (60 min)
>         Jem has uploaded the revised version to the GridForge.
>         - http://tinyurl.com/aez86
>         Look forward to proofread and tracker verification.
> 
> (1) Deployment and configuration section break-down
> 
>> == Proposed list of sections ==
>>
>> 3.1 Provision (Deploy) an application on an existing BES container
>>     (The application can then be used to instantiate a BES activity.
>>         Mostly what is now 3.2 in EMS Architecture composition.)
>>
>> 3.2 Provision a BES container
>>     (What is now 3.1 in EMS Architecture composition)
>>
>> [Both 3.1 and 3.2 assume that the 'level' of the BES container is
>> pre-determined and fixed. See below.]
>>
>> 3.3 Using ACS do 3.1
>>
>> 3.4 Using ACS do 3.2
>>
>> [Both 3.3 and 3.4 assume that the 'level' of the BES container is
>> pre-determined and fixed. See below.]
>>
>> 3.5 Add time predictions to provision 3.1 and 3.2 by a deadline
>>         Using a deployment estimation service (perhaps based on
>>         historical data, etc, but how the estimation is done is
>>         out-of-scope.) Possibly requiring reservations.
>>
>> [3.5 assumes that the 'level' of the BES container is pre-determined
>> and fixed. See below.]
>>
>> 3.x Determine dynamically the optimal level of 'BES container' in the
>>     system and provision containers appropriately depending on
>>     workload etc
>>         may depend on analysis of the entire application CDL (down to
>>         hardware) for the entire workload of the system; use
>>         deployment time predictions; etc
>>
>> <<Version 1 of the document could just cover scenarios 3.1-3.5 and
>> discuss 3.x as future work. Otherwise need to breakdown 3.x further.>>
>> ==
> 
> 
> 
> (2) - Deployment versus provisioning requirements
> 
>>      (Or, where to 'cut' the CDL tree. Above the 'cut' point is
>>      deployment---assumed to be a relatively 'light' operation---and
>>      below is provisioning---assumed to be more heavy-weight.)
>>     - Deciding the cut point is orthogonal to CDDLM---it is policy or
>>       best practices and is therefore a system choice
>>     - Information (metadata) to help in making the choice could be
>>       added to the CDL as mark up
>>     - CDDLM implementations have walked the tree fairly far down (to
>>       the hardware) for deployment
>>     - CDL may be sufficient to express both deployment and
>>       provisioning. But it is an open issue if these two activities
>>       can, or should be unified in this way in OGSA. In particular CDL
>>       may not be going to the full extent of supporting costing, etc.,
>>       that maybe needed to address all requirements
>>       - Resources beneath the cut point can be considered as
>>         pre-provisioned: they either exist or they don't. They are not
>>         going to be deployed themselves; but they can be used to
>>         deploy on.
>>       - Which resource to choose for deployment? It is the choice of
>>         the EMS architecture (EPS, CSG) and not of CDDLM.
>>       - Discussion on how CDL may be viewed as a hierarchy of scripts;
>>         and that one could have a history of costs associated with
>>         each node. In other words the tree could be decorated with
>>         other information (cost, etc, as metadata)
> 
> 
> (3) - JSDL and CDL relation and can one cover the requirements for the
> 
>>     other
>>     - A JSDL submission may be associated with a deployment
>>       description or request, and the deployment portion could be
>>       described in CDL. [I.e., CDL could be a more specific
>> application
>>       sub-type in a JSDL document.]
>>     - JSDL is not intended to describe the configuration of the
>>       software that will be used by the job. The aim is to describe
>>       things at a higher level. There may be similarities between the
>>       languages (perhaps around resource description) but it does not
>>       mean that one language can, or should, replace the other because
>>       they serve different purposes.
>>     - Jay wants to pursue the issue further among a smaller group of
>>       people.
> 
> 
> 3) OGSA F2F meeting update (30 min)
>         Session leaders: Please provide your goals and detailed agenda.
> 
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2005Winter_F2F_survay
> https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2006Jan-OGSA-F2F-agenda 
> 
> 
> 4) Wrap up (10 min)
>         AOB
> 
> <NEXT CALL>
> 
> OGSA-WG F2F Jan. 16-20.




From ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de  Thu Jan 12 10:30:50 2006
From: ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de (Philipp Wieder)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 17:30:50 +0100
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
In-Reply-To: <43C52C3B.9000400@hp.com>
References: <43C52C3B.9000400@hp.com>
Message-ID: <43C6843A.9010001@fz-juelich.de>

Dear All,

please find the updated version of the spec. at:
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/WS-AgreementSpecificationDraft.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).




From t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com  Thu Jan 12 22:52:31 2006
From: t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com (Toshiyuki Nakata)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:52:31 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
In-Reply-To: <43C6843A.9010001@fz-juelich.de>
Message-ID: <iss.26d2a681.100c.43c73208.62df8.1d@mail.jp.nec.com>

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 ??????
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).
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublicComments060113.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 106496 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060113/8580d426/attachment.xls 

From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com  Fri Jan 13 01:21:48 2006
From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:21:48 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] [ogsa-wg] Final proposed schedule for OGSA F2F meeting
Message-ID: <43C7550C.3020500@jp.fujitsu.com>

Please accept my apologies for cross posting.

Attached is the (hopefully) final proposed schedule for
upcoming OGSA-WG and fellow WGs F2F meeting in Sunnyvale.

The last minutes changes include;
    - Swap GRAAP and OGSA 1.5 on Tuesday.
    - Move WS-Management profile to Wed 1:30-2:30pm
    - Move Information to Monday afternoon, swapping with the EMS
      roadmap.

It is also uploaded to GridForge;
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2006Jan-OGSA-F2F-agenda

See you in Sunnyvale!
-- 
Hiro Kishimoto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2006JanF2FmeetingAgendaV10.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 126464 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060113/5eec5b76/attachment.doc 

From ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de  Fri Jan 13 03:08:00 2006
From: ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de (Philipp Wieder)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:08:00 +0100
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
In-Reply-To: <iss.26d2a681.100c.43c73208.62df8.1d@mail.jp.nec.com>
References: <iss.26d2a681.100c.43c73208.62df8.1d@mail.jp.nec.com>
Message-ID: <43C76DF0.707@fz-juelich.de>

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 ??????
> 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).
>>




From t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com  Fri Jan 13 04:42:57 2006
From: t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com (Toshiyuki Nakata)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:42:57 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
In-Reply-To: <43C76DF0.707@fz-juelich.de>
Message-ID: <iss.29535dc9.1d53.43c7842c.6e734.fd@mail.jp.nec.com>

Dear Philipp:
Thank you very much for checking.
Updated the list as attached.
Best Regards
Toshi

-----
Toshiyuki Nakata ??????
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: Philipp Wieder [mailto:ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de] 
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:08 PM
> To: Toshiyuki Nakata
> Cc: graap-wg at gridforum.org
> Subject: Re: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/11 telecon
> 
> 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 ??????
> > 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).
> >>
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublicComments060113rev1.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 107008 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060113/4a5a2d8e/attachment.xls 

From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com  Sun Jan 15 13:50:27 2006
From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 04:50:27 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] [ogsa-wg] Really final proposed schedule for OGSA F2F meeting
In-Reply-To: <43C7550C.3020500@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <43C7550C.3020500@jp.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <43CAA783.7060109@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi all,

Please accept my apologies for cross posting.

Attached is the really final proposed schedule for
upcoming OGSA-WG and fellow WGs F2F meeting in Sunnyvale.

The last minutes changes include;
   - Move WS-Management profile to Tue 1:30-2:30pm
   - EMS roadmap sub team proposal on Mon & Tue

It is also uploaded to GridForge;
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/2006Jan-OGSA-F2F-agenda 


See you in Sunnyvale!
----
Hiro Kishimoto
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2006JanF2FmeetingAgendaV10.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 160768 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060116/03ddd935/attachment.doc 

From jim_pruyne at hp.com  Wed Jan 18 06:14:33 2006
From: jim_pruyne at hp.com (Jim Pruyne)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 04:14:33 -0800
Subject: [graap-wg] no graap call on 1/18
Message-ID: <43CE3129.7000301@hp.com>

Sorry for the short notice, I will not be able to make the telecon on 
1/18 at the usual time.  I expect to be able to hold the call the 
following week.

--- Jim




From Anne.Anderson at sun.com  Wed Jan 18 15:04:02 2006
From: Anne.Anderson at sun.com (Anne Anderson)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:04:02 -0500
Subject: [graap-wg] WS-Agreement and WS-PolicyConstraints
Message-ID: <43CEAD42.3000702@Sun.COM>

Colleagues,

I just finished reading WS-Agreement: this is a nice piece of work.

I noticed that the language for constraints or condition expressions in
WS-Agreement is not specified, although XQuery is mentioned as possibly
being suitable.

A group of us in OASIS are discussing a constraint/condition language
based on the functions used in the OASIS XACML access control language.
This language would work very well as a constraint language in
WS-Agreement.  The advantage of this language over XQuery is that the
intersection of two constraints or conditions can be determined
automatically and efficiently (formally based on narrowing algorithm
work, although that is not mentioned in the draft spec). This makes it
easy for one party to determine automatically and with a standard engine
whether the actual conditions and constraints in a proposed agreement
fall within another party's parameters.

The discussion is going on at dipal-discuss at lists.oasis-open.org
("dipal" stands for "domain-independent policy assertion language").
You do not have to be a member of OASIS to participate.  The archives
are at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dipal-discuss/.  DIPAL is
designed to work within any "Boolean combinations of predicates"
framework, such as WS-Policy or the WS-Agreement "All", "OneOrMore", and
"ExactlyOne" compositors.

The draft spec Sun has offered to contribute on RF terms is called
"WS-PolicyConstraints", and is available at
http://research.sun.com/projects/xacml. This spec is based on a Working
Draft developed in the XACML TC by Tim Moses of Entrust; the working
draft is not moving forward in the XACML TC because it goes beyond the
"authorization and access control" charter.  Frank Siebenlist of GGF has
been a strong supporter of both these specs, and is one of the
co-sponsors of the discussion list.

I invite you to participate in our conversation.  I would be happy to
answer any questions.  We have 60 more days to gather interest in
standardizing this work, and we need companies to openly support it in
order to move forward.

Regards,
Anne
-- 
Anne H. Anderson               Anne.Anderson at sun.com
Sun Microsystems Labs          1-781-442-0928
Burlington, MA USA







From franks at mcs.anl.gov  Wed Jan 18 15:58:38 2006
From: franks at mcs.anl.gov (Frank Siebenlist)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 13:58:38 -0800
Subject: [graap-wg] WS-Agreement and WS-PolicyConstraints
In-Reply-To: <43CEAD42.3000702@Sun.COM>
References: <43CEAD42.3000702@Sun.COM>
Message-ID: <43CEBA0E.8090900@mcs.anl.gov>

Dear graap'ers,

I'd like to chip in here and make the observation that ws-agreement and
ws-policyconstraints seem indeed very much complementary, and that
ws-agreement could leverage a language like ws-policyconstraints for the
higher level agreement detail matching.

(I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I didn't make that connection
before and only after Anne asked about me ws-agreement...)

Please take a closer look at the WS-PolicyConstraints doc, and share
your thoughts.

Regards, Frank.


Anne Anderson wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> I just finished reading WS-Agreement: this is a nice piece of work.
>
> I noticed that the language for constraints or condition expressions in
> WS-Agreement is not specified, although XQuery is mentioned as possibly
> being suitable.
>
> A group of us in OASIS are discussing a constraint/condition language
> based on the functions used in the OASIS XACML access control language.
> This language would work very well as a constraint language in
> WS-Agreement.  The advantage of this language over XQuery is that the
> intersection of two constraints or conditions can be determined
> automatically and efficiently (formally based on narrowing algorithm
> work, although that is not mentioned in the draft spec). This makes it
> easy for one party to determine automatically and with a standard engine
> whether the actual conditions and constraints in a proposed agreement
> fall within another party's parameters.
>
> The discussion is going on at dipal-discuss at lists.oasis-open.org
> ("dipal" stands for "domain-independent policy assertion language").
> You do not have to be a member of OASIS to participate.  The archives
> are at http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/dipal-discuss/.  DIPAL is
> designed to work within any "Boolean combinations of predicates"
> framework, such as WS-Policy or the WS-Agreement "All", "OneOrMore", and
> "ExactlyOne" compositors.
>
> The draft spec Sun has offered to contribute on RF terms is called
> "WS-PolicyConstraints", and is available at
> http://research.sun.com/projects/xacml. This spec is based on a Working
> Draft developed in the XACML TC by Tim Moses of Entrust; the working
> draft is not moving forward in the XACML TC because it goes beyond the
> "authorization and access control" charter.  Frank Siebenlist of GGF has
> been a strong supporter of both these specs, and is one of the
> co-sponsors of the discussion list.
>
> I invite you to participate in our conversation.  I would be happy to
> answer any questions.  We have 60 more days to gather interest in
> standardizing this work, and we need companies to openly support it in
> order to move forward.
>
> Regards,
> Anne
>   

-- 
Frank Siebenlist               franks at mcs.anl.gov
The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory




From jim_pruyne at hp.com  Wed Jan 25 03:42:42 2006
From: jim_pruyne at hp.com (Jim Pruyne)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 01:42:42 -0800
Subject: [graap-wg] telecon on 1/25
Message-ID: <43D74812.6000009@hp.com>

We will have a telecon. on Wed. morning/evening. Dial-in numbers will be 
the same.
The time is:
9:00AM Central Time US (GMT-0600, I think)
which should be:
10:00AM Eastern Time US
1500 UK
1600 Germany
midnight Japan
2200 Thailand

Phone Number: 866-673-8466 in the US. 702-477-6031 for those outside the 
US.
Conference code #8578310.

Topics to be touched on include, OGSA F2F report, any GGF planning, 
addressing comments from public comment.

--- Jim




From Wolfgang.Ziegler at scai.fraunhofer.de  Wed Jan 25 04:09:06 2006
From: Wolfgang.Ziegler at scai.fraunhofer.de (Wolfgang Ziegler)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:09:06 +0100
Subject: [graap-wg] GRAAP sessions at GGF16
Message-ID: <43D74E42.8080406@scai.fraunhofer.de>

Hi,

the three GRAAP sessions at GGF16 are scheduled for Wednesday, February 15.

GRAAP#1  8:30am - 10:00am
GRAAP#2 10:30am - 12:00pm
GRAAP#3  1:30pm -  3:00pm

Best regards

Wolfgang

-- 
       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   http://www.scai.fraunhofer.de
       "Heut ist nicht so kalt wie gestern, trotzdem dass heut kaelter ist"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3761 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060125/682fa819/attachment.bin 

From jim_pruyne at hp.com  Wed Jan 25 10:08:24 2006
From: jim_pruyne at hp.com (Jim Pruyne)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 08:08:24 -0800
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/25/06 telecon
Message-ID: <43D7A278.5090802@hp.com>

Attached.  We'll meet next week at the same time.

--- Jim

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Jan2506-minutes.txt
Url: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060125/91f8d02e/attachment.txt 

From nakata at mtg.biglobe.ne.jp  Wed Jan 25 10:22:24 2006
From: nakata at mtg.biglobe.ne.jp (Toshiyuki Nakata)
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:22:24 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] minutes from 1/25/06 telecon
In-Reply-To: <43D7A278.5090802@hp.com>
References: <43D7A278.5090802@hp.com>
Message-ID: <43D7A5C0.3060002@mtg.biglobe.ne.jp>

Public Comments updated (entry no. 36)
Best Regards
Toshi


Jim Pruyne wrote:
> Attached.  We'll meet next week at the same time.
> 
> --- Jim
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublicComments060126.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 97280 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060126/0b002f8d/attachment.xls 

From maclaren at cct.lsu.edu  Wed Jan 25 16:41:17 2006
From: maclaren at cct.lsu.edu (Jon MacLaren)
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:41:17 -0600
Subject: [graap-wg] Re: Out of the Past - the GRAAP use cases
Message-ID: <05E4BD34-F2A9-4460-9222-0EFF006F95B3@cct.lsu.edu>

All,

As promised, I've dusted down the Usage Scenarios, put new GGF  
boilerplate text (IPR statement, etc.) in, and submitted the document  
to the GGF Editor for public review.  It will be great to see this  
document finally published.

The document can be found in DOC and PDF (Sorry for the usually long  
GridForge URLs):

	https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/draft-ggf- 
graap-usagescenarios-02.doc/en/1

	https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/graap-wg/document/draft-ggf- 
graap-usagescenarios-02.pdf/en/1

The GGF Editor tracker for the document is at:

	https://forge.gridforum.org/tracker/?aid=1726

Cheers,

Jon.





From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com  Mon Jan 30 02:55:21 2006
From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:55:21 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] [ogsa-wg] Survey for GGF16, GGF17, and interim F2F in April
Message-ID: <43DDD479.70402@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting.

As you already know, OGSA-WG is planning to have F2F meetings
back-to-back with GGF16 (Athens) and GGF17 (Tokyo). We are also
planning to have interim F2F meeting in April (venue TBD).

Please let us know your plan for attendance and preference by
answering the following on-line survey.

http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224YECBCXZY

OGSA-WG will discuss meeting plans at the upcoming weekly call on
Monday, Jan. 30th, 4-6pm CST.

And hard deadline for this survey is Sunday, Feb. 5th.

Thanks,
-- 
Hiro Kishimoto













From hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com  Mon Jan 30 03:37:39 2006
From: hiro.kishimoto at jp.fujitsu.com (Hiro Kishimoto)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:37:39 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] Re: [ogsa-wg] Survey for GGF16, GGF17, and interim F2F in April
In-Reply-To: <43DDD479.70402@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <43DDD479.70402@jp.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <43DDDE63.6050504@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting again.

OGSA Round Table session at GGF16 should read "Feb. 13 (Mon) 1:30-3pm"
instead of "Feb. 13 (Thu) 1:30-3pm" my bad.

I cannot fix already launched survey thus I launch new survey instead.
Please answer the following on-line survey;

http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224YEN4D5Z3

Thanks,
----
Hiro Kishimoto

Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> Hi all, and sorry for the cross-posting.
> 
> As you already know, OGSA-WG is planning to have F2F meetings
> back-to-back with GGF16 (Athens) and GGF17 (Tokyo). We are also
> planning to have interim F2F meeting in April (venue TBD).
> 
> Please let us know your plan for attendance and preference by
> answering the following on-line survey.
> 
> http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?p=WEB224YECBCXZY
> 
> OGSA-WG will discuss meeting plans at the upcoming weekly call on
> Monday, Jan. 30th, 4-6pm CST.
> 
> And hard deadline for this survey is Sunday, Feb. 5th.
> 
> Thanks,