Open Grid Forum


Community Practice

Archived Comments



OGF Public Comments

Public comments are a very important part of the OGF document approval process.  Through public comments, documents are given scrutiny by people with a wide range of expertise and interests. Ideally, a OGF document will be self-contained, relying only on the other documents and standards it cites to be clear and useful.  Public comments of any type are welcomed, from small editorial comments to broader comments about the scope or merit of the proposed document.  The simple act of reading a document and providing a public comment that you read it and found it suitable for publication is very useful, and provides valuable feedback to the document authors.

Thank you for making public comments on this document!

Comments for Document: WS-Agreement Specification Version 1.0 Experience Document
Author(s):D. Battre, P. Wieder, W. Ziegler
Public Comment End:30 Oct, 2009

To make anonymous comments, please use 'anonymous' and 'guest' as the un/pw.


Posted by: nakata 2009-10-04 19:42:23Minor comment on the Legend in Section 5 Constructs used in WS-Agreement – An Analysis
There seem to be two kinds of ways of denoting yes and no:
Y or y / N or n. Is there any difference in the meaning? If not then
there should be a consistent way of denoting.

Other wise, I think this document is very important in
showing how WS-Agreement is actually used in various projects.

Best Regards

Posted by: jens 2009-10-30 09:24:05Comments/review of WS-Agreement experiences document
The goals of the WS-Agreement specification is to standardise the
terminology and the concepts, and the WSDL, for the WS-Agreement

Example scenarios in GFD.107 cover job submission, advance
reservation of resources, and negotiating QoS (called "service
parameterization" in the document). All these scenarios appear to be
covered by the experiences document.

The experiences document does not discuss the expected behaviours of
the service entities (agreement providers and consumers) described in

The WS-Agreement implementations are used in grids with very diverse
middleware stacks (GT4, GRIA, Unicore-based, etc) -- this is good
because it means the software is applicable in a wide range of

It is not immediately clear how many independent implementations there
are. Section 5.1 suggests there are somewhere between six and eight
-- are they completely independent or do they share code or libraries,
eg. to implement the underlying WS-* protocols? More than one project
used WSAG4J. In any case, it would appear there are "enough"

However, it would appear from section 7 that only two implementations
have been used for interoperation testing. It would be helpful to
have interoperation testing between other implementations.

Moreover, the interoperation testing appears to rely on XSLT to
translate one WSRF format to another one, via an interoperability
proxy. This may be outside the scope of WS-Agreement but does not
bode well for interoperation. On the positive side, it does show that
different implementations were used.

Are there implementations in languages other than Java, specifically C
or C++? None are mentioned in the experiences document. Successful
interoperation between C/C++ implementations and Java implementations
would be particularly convincing.

There is no doubt the WS-Agreement specification has been useful to
the projects referred to in the experiences document. Conversely,
there is no doubt that having a standard for WS-Agreement is useful
because the projects have a need for this type of protocol and it's
clearly better to have standard than for each project to "roll its

I would expect that if the WSRF interoperation problems were addressed
(obviously outside the scope of the WS-Agreement projects), the two
WS-Agreement implementations would fully interoperate. In other
words, they actually do interoperate, the proxy is only needed to make
the WSRF implementations interoperate. If this were true, my concerns
about interoperations would just be that interoperation has been
tested on only two implementations, it would be nice to see wider
interoperation testing.

While I am also concerned about the lack of C++ implementations, there
is clearly a lot of experiences with WS-Agreement in different
projects, and the protocol fills a need. A lot of high quality work
has been done by the group, and it shows in the documents. If the
remaining concerns could be addressed in a satisfactory way, I would
recommend that GFD.107 be promoted to full OGF standard.


Posted by: freestar 2012-04-16 00:50:12discount oakley sunglasses
Television has come into our lives for many oakley sunglasses we can nearly say that we cant live happily without television Cheap Oakley Sunglasses.It can give us the latest information and news.Oakley Asian Fit Sunglasses it can open up our eyes and enlarge our knowledge. Oakley Lifestyle Sunglasses we can be entertained by the programs on television.Otherwise, Oakley Polarized Sunglasses well be boring all day if there is no television.Oakley Sunglasses Outlet television programs are attractive.

> login   RSS RSS Contact Webmaster

OGFSM, Open Grid ForumSM, Grid ForumSM, and the OGF Logo are trademarks of OGF