[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [nm-wg] Re: [ghpn-wg] Draft on Grid network services
Hi Franco,
I don't want to pre-empt the results of joint
GHPN-NMWG phone call, but...
No matter who eventually takes responsibility
for defining the requirements of monitoring services, I think it is essential
that the group involved contains members of both GGF groups. This is to ensure that we include
requirements relevant to both groups. And also to
make sure both group's requirements are compatible (e.g I think that NMWG
may see monitoring at a higher level than GHPN....although I could be wrong
;-)
Paul and I are happy to work on this, like we have for the NM-WG request schema. I not
assuming that this will happen, but if it does, we would hope others would
join us. Indeed, I can think of people from both groups who would be
interested.
Hope this
helps,
Mark.
Last Friday, Brian,
Richard, John Tollefsrud and I had a good phone call. We didn't have a chance
to summarize its outcome yet (further, Brian and I are both here at GW04
and can talk it through some more, schedules permitting). I believe we have a
good understanding of our agendas. We have made plans to reciprocate GHPN and
NM presentations during the respective GGF10 sessions.
With regard to
Dan's point: Keeping with its RG charter, the GHPN's effort is a breadth
exercise (how do N services compose) rather than a depth exercise. I've put
down the word proxy to reflect the fact that our brainstorming effort counts
(hopefully) on live interest and participation by one or more of the NM-WG
members. If we were to build something (such as a specification), then I would
agree that "use" is a most-fitting word. I encourage Paul and others to join
in this GHPN effort and shape it as they see fit. Any type of contribution ---
whether it gets passed to us "by value" or "by reference" --- adds to our
breadth exercise.
thanks
-franco
At 12:41 PM 1/20/2004,
Peter Clarke wrote:
All
I had understood that there was to be a phone call
meeting to discuss
the mutual interest in monitoring
services of GHPN and NM-WG
Im not aware this
happened yet ? Would it be good to do this now,
as i keep seeing mails alluding to ambiguity.
For the record, and I think i said this before, I regard the
NM-WG
scope as well defined and entirely within
their remit. Thus the
work of GHPN should
recognise this, and not intentionally, or
unintentionally
appear to re-invent network
monitoring services already in scope for NM-WG
I
sense some feeling that this is the case, and yet i dont believe it is
the
intention
- hence a
telecon would perhaps sort the situation.
Peter
-----Original
Message-----
From: owner-ghpn-wg@gridforum.org [mailto:owner-ghpn-wg@gridforum.org]On
Behalf Of Dan Gunter
Sent: 20
January 2004 16:50
To: nm-wg@ggf.org
Cc: Grid High-Performance Networking WG
Subject: Re: [nm-wg] Re: [ghpn-wg] Draft on Grid network
services
I agree that 3.3.3 / 3.3.4 is in the
scope of NM-WG. IMHO, if GHPN wants
to work on
defining the contents of these bullets they should do so
through participation in NM-WG -- the input would no doubt improve
the
output. These sections of the document could
simply summarize the
results of that work. To be
concrete, the current outline reads "proxy
to
NM-WG", but I would change this to "use NM-WG" (since NM-WG
schemas/interfaces are already intended as general-purpose glue
between
existing systems).
- Dan
Paul D Mealor wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> W.r.t. sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4: how's this going to
work with NMWG? As I
> understand it, there's not
going to be a shared meeting between NMWG and
>
GHPN until actually *at* GGF10.
> I suspect I've
misunderstood something along the way.
>
>
> I don't particularly want
to hijack anything, but I already have some
>
words written down about a Network Monitoring Grid Service (sec
3.3.3)
> based on requirements that have come up
while we were working on NMWG
> requirements
documents, E2EpiPES work, and so on. I'm not at all sure
> what sort of thing should go in the Draft on Grid
network services, but
> hopefully some of this
may be useful:
> http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~pdm/ghpn/ogsa-network-services.doc
>
> Paul
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, George Clapp
wrote:
>
>
>>Attached is the current draft on Grid network
services. It's in MS Word
>>format and
is still in outline with names associated with sections. Could
>>those who have volunteered to contribute to
sections review the outline
and
>>add text? The cutoff date for GGF10 is in February,
which is fast
approaching.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>George Clapp
>>732-758-4346
>>clapp@research.telcordia.com
>
>