[ggf-ogsa-sec-wg] Charter Review/ Milestone Update

[dane@fnal.gov]

<AD Hat ON>

In reviewing status of the area, I note that this
working group has been silent since October 2003
and the milestones for completion of the two
documents was June 2003. I've been discussing this
situation with the two chairs for a while now, but would
like to take the discussion to the full list since I believe
there are general issues to discuss about the goals of
this group.

We need to revisit the charter of this group for two
separate reasons:

1) the milestones have slipped substantially and there
is no obvious progress toward completion. The target
dates should be adjusted and if the group needs to go
dormant for some period awaiting some external development,
then this should be clearly stated to the community.

2) The charter is ambiguous as to whether the scope of the group is to
create one version of the two documents and disband or whether it is
intending to be a ongoing general group for OGSA security
specifications. Given recent discussions of paralleling the IETF
concept of design teams, and the current overall population of the
security area, I'm not against that. I believe the overhead in
spinning up a group is larger than originally thought (and larger than
we'd like). I don't want to fracture too much. On the otherhand,
if large scale coordination doesn't work and it's best to
focus on specific components, then we should move that way
once a rough outline of an architecture is agreed.

Those of you watching the OGSA group activities in the
Architecture area will recognize that as an extremely
active group. I understand the current goal to be a
rough framework for discussion at Berlin and a complete
architecture for discussion in June. I would like to
understand better what deliverables this group is planning
to contribute on that timescale and how that matches
the expectation of the OGSA working group.

I recognize that the OGSA-AuthZ group is working hard
on addressing one particular component of the OGSA Sec
architecture. Do people feel that is sufficient ?
That it is all that should be attempted at the current
time ? What next ?

What do you think ? What are you planning on doing ?

<AD Hat OFF>

Regards,
Dane