1. Sessions 1 & 3: Published Document Session Summary
Jem Treadwell, Hewlett-Packard
OGSA Wrap-Up, OGSA-WG #12
28-30 June, 2005 (GGF14 in Chicago)

2. GGF Intellectual Property Policy
All statements related to the activities of the GGF and addressed to the GGF are subject to all provisions of Appendix B of GFD-C.1, which grants to the GGF and its participants certain licenses and rights in such statements. Such statements include verbal statements in GGF meetings, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to any GGF working group or portion thereof,
Where the GFSG knows of rights, or claimed rights, the GGF secretariat shall attempt to obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written assurance that upon approval by the GFSG of the relevant GGF document(s), any party will be able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute the technology or works when implementing, using or distributing technology based upon the specific specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. The working group or research group proposing the use of the technology with respect to which the proprietary rights are claimed may assist the GGF secretariat in this effort. The results of this procedure shall not affect advancement of document, except that the GFSG may defer approval where a delay may facilitate the obtaining of such assurances. The results will, however, be recorded by the GGF Secretariat, and made available. The GFSG may also direct that a summary of the results be included in any GFD published containing the specification.

3. Roadmap is officially in public comment No interoperability tests
Roadmap Document
Roadmap is officially in public comment
No interoperability tests
Gap – needs to be addressed somehow
Interoperability workshop/test: not sure we want to go that way yet
Who tracks and checks the status of the referenced specs?
Up to the person who is in charge of the each document
Status of referenced specifications:
Sometimes a spec is not visible because the workings of the group are opaque. By definition we cannot refer to such documents
Sometimes work to update a spec is not visible until made public
But that doesn’t invalidate older versions.
These can still be used but maybe will not be adopted in the way initially expected

4. Profile Definition Document
Difficult to make a judgment call on de-facto (vs not in standards body)
Not true. It is usually quite clear, and a consensus decision
Could different profiles cater to different needs? E.g., campus grid?
Usually address different functions e.g. naming
Also could address different scenarios: e.g. authorization
Distinction between proposed/grid recommendation?
Define a different level of interoperability
How do we decide the next piece of work to do?
Volunteer effort; prioritize based on group-internal evaluation and what we think is needed

5. Why do you need to define an extension to WS-I?
WSRF Basic Profile (1)
Why do you need to define an extension to WS-I?
WS-I allows for extensions to its profiles. No rule that any extensions have to be within the WS-I forum
WS-I is not ready to do this extension yet; GGF needs it
Could pass this profile back to WS-I at a later point
No decision whether to do conformance testing within GGF
Why were WSN Topics not included?
Not needed for this profile; might be useful in a more advanced profile
Liaison to WS-I?
GGF has one, but only recently
WS-I is planning an update to WS-I BSP 1.0 to 1.1
Expected/planned within the next few months
Might consider whether to wait for that or not

6. OGSA AuthZ document is out for public comment
WSRF Basic Profile (2)
OGSA AuthZ document is out for public comment
Not a profile but essentially defines an auth’z’n profile for OGSA
Could make public comment – suggest redoing as an OGSA profile
GGF should publicize documents going to public comment
Should send mail to 'all' to announce public comment
Meaning of profile statements:
If you do something described in a profile must do it the defined way
No statement that you can't do other things
Independent interoperability test for a given spec
It can be done separately but it does not make any statement about the interoperability of the entire conformance profile
Compliance to OGSA might eventually require compliance to one or more profiles