From jim_pruyne at hp.com  Wed Jun  7 02:06:14 2006
From: jim_pruyne at hp.com (Jim Pruyne)
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 02:06:14 -0500
Subject: [graap-wg] telecon on 6/7
Message-ID: <44867AE6.8030702@hp.com>

We will have a telecon. on Wed. morning/evening. Dial-in numbers will be 
the same:
9:00AM Central Daylight Time US (UTC-5)
which should be:
10:00AM Eastern Daylight Time US
1500 UK
1600 Germany
2300 Japan
2100 Thailand

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




From asit at us.ibm.com  Wed Jun  7 04:51:57 2006
From: asit at us.ibm.com (Asit Dan)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 05:51:57 -0400
Subject: [graap-wg] telecon on 6/7 -- updated SLO specification for expression
 of  a KPI target
In-Reply-To: <44867AE6.8030702@hp.com>
Message-ID: <OF00AB8754.36DF6B86-ON85257186.0033C333-85257186.0036340C@us.ibm.com>

Jim,
   As per many past discussions, attached below is an updated draft of 
WS-Agreement specification with a proposal for simple (and often used) 
expression of service level objectives. For better readability, I have 
accepted all prior changes in this draft to highlight only the new updates 
(Section 4.2.6.2 and  4.2.6.3). We will review this text in today's call.

 
Regards.
Asit Dan, Ph.D.
SWG SOA Design Requirements
Phone: (914) 766-1767 
Internet: asit at us.ibm.com
ICSOC 06 PC Chair (http://www.icsoc.org)



Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne at hp.com> 
Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
06/07/2006 03:06 AM

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

Subject
[graap-wg] telecon on 6/7






We will have a telecon. on Wed. morning/evening. Dial-in numbers will be 
the same:
9:00AM Central Daylight Time US (UTC-5)
which should be:
10:00AM Eastern Daylight Time US
1500 UK
1600 Germany
2300 Japan
2100 Thailand

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060607/9e78c95e/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WS-AgreementSpecificationDraft (SLO).doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 809472 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060607/9e78c95e/attachment.obj 

From asit at us.ibm.com  Wed Jun  7 09:22:03 2006
From: asit at us.ibm.com (Asit Dan)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 10:22:03 -0400
Subject: [graap-wg] Fw: Hello:::::GRAAP
Message-ID: <OF3B81196F.CD54A429-ON85257186.004EDF31-85257186.004EEE78@us.ibm.com>

fyi -- callin for today

Regards.
Asit Dan, Ph.D.
SWG SOA Design Requirements
Phone: (914) 766-1767 
Internet: asit at us.ibm.com
ICSOC 06 PC Chair (http://www.icsoc.org)
----- Forwarded by Asit Dan/Watson/IBM on 06/07/2006 10:21 AM -----

Heiko Ludwig/Watson/IBM
06/07/2006 10:18 AM

To
Wolfgang Ziegler <Wolfgang.Ziegler at scai.fraunhofer.de>
cc
Asit Dan/Watson/IBM at IBMUS, "'Jim Pruyne'" <jim_pruyne at hp.com>, Karl 
Czajkowski <karlcz at univa.com>, ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de, 
t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com
Subject
Re: Hello:::::GRAAP





Do we have a critical mass to switch to another call in number. if you 
like, let's move to mine.

Toll Free: 866-814-9631
International: +1-210-301-7021
Participant Passcode: 7134521

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/





Wolfgang Ziegler <Wolfgang.Ziegler at scai.fraunhofer.de> 
06/07/2006 10:10 AM

To
t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com
cc
Karl Czajkowski <karlcz at univa.com>, "'Jim Pruyne'" <jim_pruyne at hp.com>, 
Heiko Ludwig/Watson/IBM at IBMUS, ph.wieder at fz-juelich.de, Asit 
Dan/Watson/IBM at IBMUS
Subject
Re: Hello:::::GRAAP






yes, me ;-)

Toshiyuki Nakata schrieb:
> Hi: Anyone connected?
> Best Regards
> Toshi
> 
>>
> 

-- 
           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

               CoreGRID Network of Excellence   www.coregrid.net
                  Collaboration Gateway   www.coregrid.net/cg
     Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling www.coregrid.net/irms

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060607/c519f784/attachment.html 

From asit at us.ibm.com  Wed Jun  7 10:04:17 2006
From: asit at us.ibm.com (Asit Dan)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 11:04:17 -0400
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C  
Message-ID: <OF93A20E5D.C3BE1B65-ON85257186.00388A28-85257186.0052CC74@us.ibm.com>

Toshi,
   As per the discussion in today's call, here is the  url for the Web 
Services Policy Working Group Charter. 
            http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ws-policy-charter.html

You can find the WS-Policy document by following the  WS-Policy? Member 
Submission link.
Regards.
Asit Dan, Ph.D.
SWG SOA Design Requirements
Phone: (914) 766-1767 
Internet: asit at us.ibm.com
ICSOC 06 PC Chair (http://www.icsoc.org)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060607/68a0164b/attachment.html 

From hludwig at us.ibm.com  Wed Jun  7 10:41:44 2006
From: hludwig at us.ibm.com (Heiko Ludwig)
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 11:41:44 -0400
Subject: [graap-wg] Minutes call of June 7, 2006
Message-ID: <OFDCF550BC.16AF9835-ON85257186.0052298D-85257186.00563878@us.ibm.com>

Summary minutes of today's call:

Attendees:
   Toshiyuki Nakata
   Wolfgang Ziegler 
   Asit Dan 
   Heiko Ludwig

Discussion of Asit's proposal for DPI Targets in Service Level Objectives
- Asit to prepare example for further discussion and to be included into 
appendix
- Asit and Heiko to propose schema, to be used in the example

Finalization of the Schema and WSDLs
- Heiko to verify schemas and check name space consistency

WS-Policy use.
- WS-Policy was submitted for discussion to W3C and is now in the official 
standards process
- Heiko to investigate options of using the proposal in our specification

Due to changes in the grid forge, some work is being delayed and links are 
inconsistent.

Respectfully submitted,
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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060607/f978a715/attachment.html 

From t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com  Tue Jun 13 19:17:45 2006
From: t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com (Toshiyuki Nakata)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:17:45 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C  
In-Reply-To: <OF93A20E5D.C3BE1B65-ON85257186.00388A28-85257186.0052CC74@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <003b01c68f47$f5b2e5f0$ab84380a@ISIBASI>

Hello:
Asit: Thank you very much for the pointer.

I intend to attend today's teleconference, but I might fail to do so,
so here are my views on  PROS and CONS:

PROS: 
Quote: from 
  http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ws-policy-charter.html 
"Web Services Policy defines a flexible policy data model and an extensible
grammar for expressing the capabilities,
 requirements and general characteristics of a Web service, and defines
mechanisms for associating policies with Web service constructs. 
Web Services Policy is used to convey the conditions for an interaction
between a Web service requester and a Web service provider."
It would be good to have this related part in WS-Agreement described in a
compatible way as that would make acceptance of 
WS-Agreement  easier.

CONS:
1)Adopting WS-Policy would mean that WS-Agreement would depend on a
specification which still needs to be agreeed to.
While the charter does say that "Therefore, this Working Group shall be
schedule-driven and Web Services 
Policy shall remain compatible with and to the extent possible accommodate
the use of these existing policy assertions. "
Until the final draft is out, one may not know what will stay stable. 
The end date is 31 December 2007 which is a year and a half away. I think
many people have been waiting
 for WS-Agreement spec to be completed and to have to really wait more might
have negative effects.

2)Adopting WS-Policy would mean that there would be need to change the
current implementations.
I do not know how many implementations of WS-policy there are in the world
but to have to modify 
the current imlplementation would have some negative issues (at least for
the implementation people) for getting interoperability etc.

3)(This is a minor issue) Since this has a large impact, we might need
another call of public comments.

All in all I would suggest that for this version of the spec, we should
stick to the current spec to be released and consider the modifications
for the next version of the specification.

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 Asit Dan
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:04 AM
> To: Toshiyuki Nakata
> Cc: GRAAP-WG
> Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C 
> 
> 
> Toshi, 
>    As per the discussion in today's call, here is the  url 
> for the Web Services Policy Working Group Charter. 
>             http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ws-policy-charter.html 
> 
> You can find the WS-Policy document by following the  
> WS-Policy? Member Submission 
> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/06/>  link. 
> Regards.
> Asit Dan, Ph.D.
> SWG SOA Design Requirements
> Phone: (914) 766-1767
> Internet: asit at us.ibm.com
> ICSOC 06 PC Chair (http://www.icsoc.org)
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4038 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060614/3ac9f9ec/attachment.bin 

From Wolfgang.Ziegler at scai.fraunhofer.de  Wed Jun 14 02:08:53 2006
From: Wolfgang.Ziegler at scai.fraunhofer.de (Wolfgang Ziegler)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:08:53 +0200
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
In-Reply-To: <003b01c68f47$f5b2e5f0$ab84380a@ISIBASI>
References: <003b01c68f47$f5b2e5f0$ab84380a@ISIBASI>
Message-ID: <448FB605.2070405@scai.fraunhofer.de>



Toshiyuki Nakata schrieb:
> Hello:
> Asit: Thank you very much for the pointer.
> 
> I intend to attend today's teleconference, but I might fail to do so,
> so here are my views on  PROS and CONS:

[...]

> All in all I would suggest that for this version of the spec, we should
> stick to the current spec to be released and consider the modifications
> for the next version of the specification.

Thanks Toshi for pointing to our most important task: getting version
1.0 of the spec submitted to the editor. We - and I suppose from comments
a got - quite a number of projects are waiting for v1 to be implemented
and to start the interoperability tests. We really must postpone
additional changes to the spec to v1.x, finalise the few modifications
we still have on the list and get it out then as soon as possible.

Best regards

Wolfgang


-- 
          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

              CoreGRID Network of Excellence   www.coregrid.net
                 Collaboration Gateway   www.coregrid.net/cg
    Institute on Resource Management and Scheduling   www.coregrid.net/irms
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2093 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060614/9692cb86/attachment.bin 

From t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com  Wed Jun 14 21:35:59 2006
From: t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com (Toshiyuki Nakata)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:35:59 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] Comment List
In-Reply-To: <448FB605.2070405@scai.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <006201c69024$6fff42e0$ab84380a@ISIBASI>

Hello:
I've updated the comment list so that at least the document pointer
points to the correct place in the new Gridforge.

Unfortunately, I've not been able to find where the comments list is
in the new structure. 

Since we've already addressed all the comments perhaps it is not 
really needed?

Best Regards
-----
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) 

> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PublicComments060615.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 118272 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060615/713db6f6/attachment.xls 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4038 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060615/713db6f6/attachment.bin 

From hludwig at us.ibm.com  Tue Jun 20 17:56:06 2006
From: hludwig at us.ibm.com (Heiko Ludwig)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:56:06 -0400
Subject: [graap-wg] Checked Schemas and WSDLs
Message-ID: <OF665761D3.F8DD7E08-ON85257193.007ABF67-85257193.007DFC7F@us.ibm.com>

All,

as discussed, I checked all schemas and WSDLs for consistency, based on 
the version that Asit sent around the other day. The following changes 
were made:

- There was a maxOccurs=unbounded in the root-level element "
AgreementServiceReferenceList" Doesn't make any sense. How did it came 
here?
- Addressing was put to the 2006/3 version of the addressing specification 
file:  

                <xs:import namespace=
"http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"
                 schemaLocation=
"http://www.w3.org/2006/03/addressing/ws-addr.xsd"/>
- numerous missing quotes were fixed
- KPI Target etc. was added, according to Asit's proposal. We might think 
about some different names for that though, e.g., TargetName and 
TargetValue

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/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060620/a97eeef6/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agreement.wsdl
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3723 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060620/a97eeef6/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PendingAgreementFactory.wsdl
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 5023 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060620/a97eeef6/attachment-0001.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AgreementAcceptance.wsdl
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3862 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060620/a97eeef6/attachment-0002.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AgreementFactory.wsdl
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 4574 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060620/a97eeef6/attachment-0003.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: agreement_types.xsd
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 10975 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060620/a97eeef6/attachment-0004.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: agreement_state_types.xsd
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 2735 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060620/a97eeef6/attachment-0005.obj 

From jim_pruyne at hp.com  Wed Jun 21 00:44:11 2006
From: jim_pruyne at hp.com (Jim Pruyne)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:44:11 -0700
Subject: [graap-wg] no telecon on 6/21
Message-ID: <4498DCAB.60308@hp.com>

All,

I'm unable to establish or attend a telecon on 6/21.  Our main priority 
right now is inventorying any outstanding work items on the 
specification.  Heiko provided his input earlier today.  If people who 
have any outstanding items could reply to this, we can determine what 
remains, and figure out how to complete the specification for submittal.

Thanks.

--- Jim




From t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com  Wed Jun 21 22:33:21 2006
From: t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com (Toshiyuki Nakata)
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:33:21 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C  
Message-ID: <002e01c695ac$9c708090$ab84380a@ISIBASI>

> Hello:
> Asit: Thank you very much for the pointer.
> 
> I intend to attend today's teleconference, but I might fail 
> to do so,
..
> All in all I would suggest that for this version of the spec, 
> we should stick to the current spec to be released and 
> consider the modifications for the next version of the specification.

Sorry I couldn't attend last week's teleconference.

Afterwards I heard that the modification to the current 
spec would be small....

So..
Since the change seems to be small, could we keep the spec as it is and
reflect the change when the new WS-Policy specification is finalised ?

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: Toshiyuki Nakata [mailto:t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 9:18 AM
> To: 'Asit Dan'
> Cc: 'GRAAP-WG'
> Subject: RE: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C 
> 
> Hello:
> Asit: Thank you very much for the pointer.
> 
> I intend to attend today's teleconference, but I might fail 
> to do so, so here are my views on  PROS and CONS:
> 
> PROS: 
> Quote: from
>   http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ws-policy-charter.html
> "Web Services Policy defines a flexible policy data model and 
> an extensible grammar for expressing the capabilities,  
> requirements and general characteristics of a Web service, 
> and defines mechanisms for associating policies with Web 
> service constructs. 
> Web Services Policy is used to convey the conditions for an 
> interaction between a Web service requester and a Web service 
> provider."
> It would be good to have this related part in WS-Agreement 
> described in a compatible way as that would make acceptance 
> of WS-Agreement  easier.
> 
> CONS:
> 1)Adopting WS-Policy would mean that WS-Agreement would 
> depend on a specification which still needs to be agreeed to.
> While the charter does say that "Therefore, this Working 
> Group shall be schedule-driven and Web Services Policy shall 
> remain compatible with and to the extent possible accommodate 
> the use of these existing policy assertions. "
> Until the final draft is out, one may not know what will stay stable. 
> The end date is 31 December 2007 which is a year and a half 
> away. I think many people have been waiting  for WS-Agreement 
> spec to be completed and to have to really wait more might 
> have negative effects.
> 
> 2)Adopting WS-Policy would mean that there would be need to 
> change the current implementations.
> I do not know how many implementations of WS-policy there are 
> in the world but to have to modify the current 
> imlplementation would have some negative issues (at least for 
> the implementation people) for getting interoperability etc.
> 
> 3)(This is a minor issue) Since this has a large impact, we 
> might need another call of public comments.
> 
> All in all I would suggest that for this version of the spec, 
> we should stick to the current spec to be released and 
> consider the modifications for the next version of the specification.
> 
> 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 Asit Dan
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:04 AM
> > To: Toshiyuki Nakata
> > Cc: GRAAP-WG
> > Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
> > 
> > 
> > Toshi, 
> >    As per the discussion in today's call, here is the  url 
> for the Web 
> > Services Policy Working Group Charter.
> >             http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ws-policy-charter.html
> > 
> > You can find the WS-Policy document by following the 
> WS-Policy? Member 
> > Submission <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2006/06/>  link.
> > Regards.
> > Asit Dan, Ph.D.
> > SWG SOA Design Requirements
> > Phone: (914) 766-1767
> > Internet: asit at us.ibm.com
> > ICSOC 06 PC Chair (http://www.icsoc.org)
> > 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 4038 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060622/c8c3a64d/attachment.bin 

From jim_pruyne at hp.com  Wed Jun 28 01:22:34 2006
From: jim_pruyne at hp.com (Jim Pruyne)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 23:22:34 -0700
Subject: [graap-wg] telecon on 6/28
Message-ID: <44A2202A.4090509@hp.com>

We will have a telecon. on Wed. morning/evening. Dial-in numbers will be 
the same:
9:00AM Central Daylight Time US (UTC-5)
which should be:
10:00AM Eastern Daylight Time US
1500 UK
1600 Germany
2300 Japan
2100 Thailand

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




From andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com  Wed Jun 28 02:08:10 2006
From: andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com (Andreas Savva)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:08:10 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
In-Reply-To: <002e01c695ac$9c708090$ab84380a@ISIBASI>
References: <002e01c695ac$9c708090$ab84380a@ISIBASI>
Message-ID: <44A22ADA.6060200@jp.fujitsu.com>

Hi,

I am curious what is the state of this discussion.

I've read Toshi's previous email on pros/cons and I agree with him. I
think at this point (one step before publication of the WS-Agreement
spec) making a change that brings back a dependency on a specification
that is about to enter the standardization process is not a good idea.

-- 
Andreas Savva

Toshiyuki Nakata wrote:
>> Hello:
>> Asit: Thank you very much for the pointer.
>>
>> I intend to attend today's teleconference, but I might fail 
>> to do so,
> ..
>> All in all I would suggest that for this version of the spec, 
>> we should stick to the current spec to be released and 
>> consider the modifications for the next version of the specification.
> 
> Sorry I couldn't attend last week's teleconference.
> 
> Afterwards I heard that the modification to the current 
> spec would be small....
> 
> So..
> Since the change seems to be small, could we keep the spec as it is and
> reflect the change when the new WS-Policy specification is finalised ?
> 
> Best Regards
> Toshi
> 
> -----


-- 
Andreas Savva
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd




From karlcz at univa.com  Wed Jun 28 02:20:19 2006
From: karlcz at univa.com (Karl Czajkowski)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:20:19 +0700
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
In-Reply-To: <44A22ADA.6060200@jp.fujitsu.com>
References: <002e01c695ac$9c708090$ab84380a@ISIBASI> <44A22ADA.6060200@jp.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <20060628072019.GO14546@moraine.localdomain>

I agree. It doesn't seem to add much to WS-Agreement at this point,
and I think people who want to engage in an "SLA and policy"
discussion should be able to observe the trivial mapping necessary
to understand our compositions as policy composition.

karl


On Jun 28, Andreas Savva modulated:
...
> I've read Toshi's previous email on pros/cons and I agree with him. I
> think at this point (one step before publication of the WS-Agreement
> spec) making a change that brings back a dependency on a specification
> that is about to enter the standardization process is not a good idea.
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Savva
> 

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com




From asit at us.ibm.com  Wed Jun 28 08:57:08 2006
From: asit at us.ibm.com (Asit Dan)
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:57:08 -0400
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
In-Reply-To: <20060628072019.GO14546@moraine.localdomain>
Message-ID: <OF0FAD8D75.1485820C-ON8525719B.0049DF66-8525719B.004CA558@us.ibm.com>

Andreas,
    We didn't have a discussion on this in our weekly call.   As Karl and 
Toshi noted  that this is a trivial change (and Heiko provided a validated 
schema with this change), so from a pure technical implementation 
viewpoint this doesn't impact  the spec even at this late stage. 

I believe this is a very important issue, and we should have a well 
reasoned and well articulated position on this for the wider audience -- 
whatever may be the final decision of the group.  The issue will keep 
coming up as the wider audience (Web Services community) will fail to 
grasp the strong objections of this group to aligning this spec to WS* 
stack, and WS-Policy in particular.  I believe the goal of this group is 
to make WS-Agreement  specification to be adopted by the wider Web 
Services community, and not to be perceived as something niche for job 
scheduling or just "Grid-thingy".   Off course, in the same spirit, I (we) 
have equally strongly advocated to the JSDL community for leveraging this 
spec in specifying flexible scheduling objectives. 

There are several benefits from this change: better alignment and 
acceptance by the broader WS* community and also avoiding confusion on SLA 
vs Policy.  A wide spectrum of folks I hear from in my everyday activities 
(architects, developers, customers, analysts...)  don't quite distinguish 
SLA and Policy.   [ Off course, that's not my position.]  Typical comments 
I hear -- are you using WS-Policy  in specifying service level assertions? 
 By embracing the use of WS-Policy as an envelope for agreement terms we 
not only avoid this confusion but also easily demonstrate what additional 
aspects are being covered by WS-Ag spec.  Finally, in the runtime 
enforcement environments (service registry, monitoring system, workload 
manager, ... ) SLA derived enforcement policies can be represented 
uniformly. 

Given that WS-Policy draft (that has been submitted to W3C) is very stable 
- has been co-authored by representatives from several organizations, 
already implemented by many vendors and many other OASIS standards on 
security, transaction, reliability, etc. dependent on this spec -  and 
changes to the current draft of WS-Ag spec is minimal (not surprising, 
since we started with WS-Policy for term composition), there are many good 
reasons to embrace WS-Policy now. In any case, it's a public document 
(W3C), and we can make WS-Ag   spec dependent only on the submitted draft. 


Regards.
Asit Dan, Ph.D.
SWG SOA Design Requirements
Phone: (914) 766-1767 
Internet: asit at us.ibm.com
ICSOC 06 PC Chair (http://www.icsoc.org)



Karl Czajkowski <karlcz at univa.com> 
Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
06/28/2006 03:20 AM

To
Andreas Savva <andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com>
cc
"'GRAAP-WG'" <graap-wg at gridforum.org>, Toshiyuki Nakata 
<t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com>, Asit Dan/Watson/IBM at IBMUS
Subject
Re: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C






I agree. It doesn't seem to add much to WS-Agreement at this point,
and I think people who want to engage in an "SLA and policy"
discussion should be able to observe the trivial mapping necessary
to understand our compositions as policy composition.

karl


On Jun 28, Andreas Savva modulated:
...
> I've read Toshi's previous email on pros/cons and I agree with him. I
> think at this point (one step before publication of the WS-Agreement
> spec) making a change that brings back a dependency on a specification
> that is about to enter the standardization process is not a good idea.
> 
> -- 
> Andreas Savva
> 

-- 
Karl Czajkowski
karlcz at univa.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/graap-wg/attachments/20060628/bb4c0249/attachment.html 

From t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com  Wed Jun 28 10:16:38 2006
From: t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com (t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:16:38 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
In-Reply-To: <OF0FAD8D75.1485820C-ON8525719B.0049DF66-8525719B.004CA558@us.ibm.com>
References: 
 <OF0FAD8D75.1485820C-ON8525719B.0049DF66-8525719B.004CA558@us.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <isapiwc.6197d101.1b0c.44a29d56.cd4d.c7@mail.jp.nec.com>

Hi: Apologies again for  not making  it on this call..
Any other moves on the pending issues?

Best Regards
Toshi


> Andreas,
>     We didn't have a discussion on this in our weekly call.   As Karl and 
> Toshi noted  that this is a trivial change (and Heiko provided a validated 
> schema with this change), so from a pure technical implementation 
> viewpoint this doesn't impact  the spec even at this late stage. 
> 
> I believe this is a very important issue, and we should have a well 
> reasoned and well articulated position on this for the wider audience -- 
> whatever may be the final decision of the group.  The issue will keep 
> coming up as the wider audience (Web Services community) will fail to 
> grasp the strong objections of this group to aligning this spec to WS* 
> stack, and WS-Policy in particular.  I believe the goal of this group is 
> to make WS-Agreement  specification to be adopted by the wider Web 
> Services community, and not to be perceived as something niche for job 
> scheduling or just "Grid-thingy".   Off course, in the same spirit, I (we) 
> have equally strongly advocated to the JSDL community for leveraging this 
> spec in specifying flexible scheduling objectives. 
> 
> There are several benefits from this change: better alignment and 
> acceptance by the broader WS* community and also avoiding confusion on SLA 
> vs Policy.  A wide spectrum of folks I hear from in my everyday activities 
> (architects, developers, customers, analysts...)  don't quite distinguish 
> SLA and Policy.   [ Off course, that's not my position.]  Typical comments 
> I hear -- are you using WS-Policy  in specifying service level assertions? 
>  By embracing the use of WS-Policy as an envelope for agreement terms we 
> not only avoid this confusion but also easily demonstrate what additional 
> aspects are being covered by WS-Ag spec.  Finally, in the runtime 
> enforcement environments (service registry, monitoring system, workload 
> manager, ... ) SLA derived enforcement policies can be represented 
> uniformly. 
> 
> Given that WS-Policy draft (that has been submitted to W3C) is very stable 
> - has been co-authored by representatives from several organizations, 
> already implemented by many vendors and many other OASIS standards on 
> security, transaction, reliability, etc. dependent on this spec -  and 
> changes to the current draft of WS-Ag spec is minimal (not surprising, 
> since we started with WS-Policy for term composition), there are many good 
> reasons to embrace WS-Policy now. In any case, it's a public document 
> (W3C), and we can make WS-Ag   spec dependent only on the submitted draft. 
> 
> Regards.
> Asit Dan, Ph.D.
> SWG SOA Design Requirements
> Phone: (914) 766-1767 
> Internet: asit at us.ibm.com
> ICSOC 06 PC Chair (http://www.icsoc.org)
> 
> 
> Karl Czajkowski <karlcz at univa.com> 
> Sent by: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org
> 06/28/2006 03:20 AM
> 
> To
> Andreas Savva <andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com>
> cc
> "'GRAAP-WG'" <graap-wg at gridforum.org>, Toshiyuki Nakata 
> <t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com>, Asit Dan/Watson/IBM at IBMUS
> Subject
> Re: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. It doesn't seem to add much to WS-Agreement at this point,
> and I think people who want to engage in an "SLA and policy"
> discussion should be able to observe the trivial mapping necessary
> to understand our compositions as policy composition.
> 
> karl
> 
> On Jun 28, Andreas Savva modulated:
> ...
>> I've read Toshi's previous email on pros/cons and I agree with him. I
>> think at this point (one step before publication of the WS-Agreement
>> spec) making a change that brings back a dependency on a specification
>> that is about to enter the standardization process is not a good idea.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Andreas Savva
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Karl Czajkowski
> karlcz at univa.com
> 

-------
NEC ????????????
??????
Toshiyuki Nakata
Executive Chief Engineer
Central Research Laboratories 
NEC Corporation
+81-44-431-7653




From t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com  Wed Jun 28 10:44:30 2006
From: t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com (t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 00:44:30 +0900
Subject: [graap-wg] url for the Web Services Policy WG in W3C
In-Reply-To: <isapiwc.6197d101.1b0c.44a29d56.cd4d.c7@mail.jp.nec.com>
References: 
 <OF0FAD8D75.1485820C-ON8525719B.0049DF66-8525719B.004CA558@us.ibm.com>
 <isapiwc.6197d101.1b0c.44a29d56.cd4d.c7@mail.jp.nec.com>
Message-ID: <isapiwc.6197d101.1b0c.44a2a3de.e593b.cd@mail.jp.nec.com>

Hi Asit and everyone:
Sorry: I am still a bit groggy. 
(Caught a cold..) 

> Hi: Apologies again for  not making  it on this call..

Asit: Thank you very much for your clarification of your opinion.

>> 
>> I believe this is a very important issue, and we should have a well 
>> reasoned and well articulated position on this for the wider audience -- 
>> whatever may be the final decision of the group.

I agree and still, I think at this point making changes to the spec could be 
dangerous due to the pros and cons I mentioned before.



>> 
>> Given that WS-Policy draft (that has been submitted to W3C) is very stable 
>> - has been co-authored by representatives from several organizations, 
>> already implemented by many vendors and many other OASIS standards on 
>> security, transaction, reliability, etc. dependent on this spec -  and 
>> changes to the current draft of WS-Ag spec is minimal (not surprising, 
>> since we started with WS-Policy for term composition), there are many good 
>> reasons to embrace WS-Policy now. 

I personally would like to see how / whether the spec would change in the
new W3C community.
I still think that it is too early to tell.
Best regards
Toshi

-------
NEC ????????????
??????
Toshiyuki Nakata
Executive Chief Engineer
Central Research Laboratories 
NEC Corporation
+81-44-431-7653