PGI session 1, OGF29, Chicago


participants: Morris, Johannes, Kazushige, Etienne, Aleksandr, Michaela,
Mark, Wolfgang Ziegler, Andre

indtroduction round

poster by Etienne

starting with requirements list

1:
Andrew disagreed
XML rendering before GLUE

Alexander:
bring to GLUE

Morris:
lack of people in the GLUE group
talking with them about timelies

agreement

###

3:
Etienne:
related to GLUE

Mark:
control heterogehous resources

Etienne:
differenece betwee execution service and endpoint which is just a queue

Aleksandr:
numerous endpoints

Mark:
endpoint GLUE specific?

Aleksandr:
no

Mark:
endpoint means epr?
then completely disagree

Etienne:
if you have one WS-addressing

Alex:
why do we want to bind ourselves to an addressing service?

Mark:
just an example

Etienne:
GLUE totally agnostic about the transport mechanism

XML description of the endpoint

Aleksandr:
no accessity for this requirement

Morris, all:
refining the requirement; depicting structure of requirement to make clearer

discussion about GLUE endpoint homogenous vs. heterogenous

changing to:
A GLUE endpoint can describe only one job submission interface (e.g. BES).
Job submission interfaces which have different properties must be captured
by separate GLUE computing endpoints.

agreement

###

9:
Mark:
why prohibit anonymous execution

Aleksandr:
every service should require encrypted connection
personally vote no

changing to X.509 on TLS (mandatory option, allowing others)

Alex:
not seeing why it is necessary

agreement

###

10:
Mark:
why limit to IGTF

Aleksandr:
out of scope

Morris:
out of scope

out of scope

###

11:

proceed with 12

###

12:
Morris:
would drop it

out (too general)

###

13,14,15,16:
out (just options)

###

17:
Etienne:
can we propose that it must accept one of the X.509 proxies, Full X.509)

Morris:
difficult to agree on in that sense

Aleksandr:
should note that SAML is just a syntax

Etienne:
who really requires SAML?

SAML out of scope because of its complexity

agreement

###

18:
out (it is a policy)

###

24:
Aleksandr:
out
because its up to the implementation

postponed, no agreement

###

25:
postponed

###

26:
postponed

###

27:
out (practically impossible)

###

33:
Morris:
meta model
always contact them first
not defined, assumed

Aleksandr:
deep negative impact on interoperability

Etienne:
either must be an information service providing security information for
endpoints
or endpoint must provide its own security info through public interface

postponed

#################################################

Session 2:

38-41:
Etienne:
do not agree with current title
requirement for security audits

Mark:
logging must be kept

Morris:
rename to
logging information must be kept and must be made available

out of scope (remotely logging is out of scope)

Mark:
make statement: logging is out of scope of PGI

efforts in JSDL activity instance

###

42:
Mark:
implementation detail
strongly disagree

Morris:
out

Etienne:
relationship with the GLUE model

out (too strict)

###

47:
Mark:
out

out (not in accordance in distributed systems design)

###

48-54:

Etienne:
execution service must stay always the same

rename

Mark:
why requiring?

Etienne:
implication on what is a job id

Mark:
what job id is is a specification

postponed

###

55:
Mark:
it is a definition not a requirement

renaming
PGI does not deal with job workflows, job collections
agreement

###

56,57:
agreement

###

58:
Morris:
out bacause collcetions are out of scope

Wolfgang:
how do you define collections

Morris:
jobs with one common id

change to "should not"

agreement

###

59:
Aleksandr:
think we do not need this requirement

Etienne:
we must...