1 / 21

The Standards Landscape

The Standards Landscape. Dave Berry Standards for Interoperable Grids: Experience from NextGRID and OMII-Europe 17 th March 2008. Contents. Standards and “Standards Defining Organisations” Context: Competing organisations co-operating The grid standards landscape

dahlia
Télécharger la présentation

The Standards Landscape

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Standards Landscape Dave Berry Standards for Interoperable Grids: Experience from NextGRID and OMII-Europe 17th March 2008 www.gridcomputingnow.org

  2. Contents • Standards and “Standards Defining Organisations” • Context: Competing organisations co-operating • The grid standards landscape • Some of the relevant organisations and standards • The nice thing about standards is, there are so many to choose from www.gridcomputingnow.org

  3. Why Standards? • Interoperability of protocols • Portability of programs • Vendor p.o.v. • Ideal is a de facto monopoly, e.g. MS Office • Network effects give more market share to market leaders • User p.o.v. (IT Managers, Developers, …) • Ideal is a number of competing products • But need to share with other users Interoperability and portability are orthogonal and complementary www.gridcomputingnow.org

  4. When is a Standard not a Standard? • When there is only one (real) implementation • I.e. created by a vendor to legitimize their product • Some accuse Office OpenXML of this • When nobody uses it • I.e., created by a committee with no user demand • Some wonder whether WS-Naming fits this description • When it is not the product of a Standards Defining Organisation • I.e. de facto standards • All these factors may change • Other vendors may implement it (is this happening with OpenXML?) • People may start to use it (is this happening with WS-Naming?) • An SDO may define it www.gridcomputingnow.org

  5. Standards Defining Organisations (SDOs) • National • ISO (BSI, ANSI, …), ETSI • ISO is the international standards body formed from a membership of national organisations • Industry • OASIS, SNIA, DMTF, ITU, ECMA, IETF, … • Community • W3C, OGF, … • Subject-specific • IVOA, many more! www.gridcomputingnow.org

  6. Who actually makes standards? • Interested parties • Vendors, users, … • SDOs provide support, procedures, publication, etc. • Companies & organisations that work together, standardise together • The result is competing groups and informal alliances • Membership of these alliances shifts from one standard to another, depending on the goals of each organisation • Sometimes this results in competing “standards” • E.g. WS-Resource Framework • IBM, HP, Fujitsu, CA, BEA, … • Vs. WS-Management • MS, Sun, Intel, Oracle, … www.gridcomputingnow.org

  7. URL / URI / IRI A single string Easily pasted into scripts and documents Ubiquitous WS-Addressing Augments URI with messaging information and metadata Assumes tooling available (or hand-write the XML) Supported by many web tools An example of competing standards • In theory, these are complementary standards • In practice, many people just use URIs • Part of a larger competition: REST vs. SOAP www.gridcomputingnow.org

  8. The SOAP / WS stack • A (large) set of standards that can be combined to implement a comprehensive infrastructure • Examples • WS-Addressing • WS-Security • WS-Eventing • WS-Policy • WS-Transaction • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_service_specifications www.gridcomputingnow.org

  9. WS-Resource Framework & WS-Notification IBM, HP, Fujitsu, CA, BEA, … Replaced OGSI WS-Management & WS-Eventing MS, Sun, Intel, Oracle, … Evolved from WS-Transfer An example of competing WS standards • This conflict was eventually resolved by the release of theWS-Resource Transfer specification • http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480724.aspx www.gridcomputingnow.org

  10. The effort required for standardisation • A typical working group or technical committee meets • Weekly by telephone • Face to face every 2-3 months • Time required to write, review and revise the documents • Outreach • Presentations, tutorials, joint meetings, … www.gridcomputingnow.org

  11. The grid standards landscape • Current status • Primarily single-source systems competing for market share • E.g. Condor, Platform, Google, Globus • E.g. Finance industry • Initially secretive about use of grid • Now users seeking to break out of vendor lock-in • Some Academic Collaboration • E.g. EGEE and OSG www.gridcomputingnow.org

  12. The Grid Environment www.gridcomputingnow.org

  13. W3C: World-Wide Web Consortium • W3C is an international consortium where member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. • Founded in 1994, ~80 published recommendations, staff on 3 continents • Members of W3C range from leading technology companies to non-profit organisations and individuals. • Best known for fundamental web standards, including: • XML • XML Schema • XHTML • XSL/XSLT • MathML • SSML • CCS • OWL • Several working groups are relevant to grid standards projects including: • WS-Addressing • WSDL 2.0 • MTOM www.gridcomputingnow.org

  14. DMTF: Distributed Management Task Force • DMTF is an industry organization leading the development of management standards and integration technology. • Founded in 1992 • Best known for standards that address system management in enterprise and Internet environments, including: • CIM • WBEM • DMI • The DMTF and OGF are formally collaborating on extensions to CIM that support the management of grid infrastructures. www.gridcomputingnow.org

  15. OASIS: Organization for the Advancement ofStructured Information Standards • OASIS is a member-led, international nonprofit standards consortium concentrating on structured information and global e-business standards • Founded in 1993, ~65 projects, staff on 3 continents • Members of OASIS are • Vendors, users, academics and governments • Organizations, individuals and industry groups • Best known for e-business standards that address real world business requirements, including: • SPML • XACML • UBL • UDDI • SAML • ebXML • WS-Security • WSRP • WS-Reliability • Host for key grid standards projects including: • WSDM • WS Resource Transfer • WS-Eventing www.gridcomputingnow.org

  16. ETSI: European Technology Standards Institute • ETSI is a member-led, international nonprofit standards consortium of the telecoms industry. It is officially responsible for the standardisation of ICT in Europe. • Founded in 1988 • Best known for GSM and TETRA • The ETSI Grid group has commisioned “plug tests” of grid implementations and is looking to produce detailed tests for existing standards. It is also making links between the grid community and telecommunications standards. www.gridcomputingnow.org

  17. OGF: Open Grid Forum • OGF is an international community leading the global standardization effort for grid computing. • Formed in 2006 from the merger of the Global Grid Forum( founded 2000) and the Enterprise Grid Alliance (founded 2004) • Members include • users, developers, and vendors. • Industry, academics, research laboratories • Best known for standards and architectures for Grids, including: • OGSA • SAGA • ByteIO • GridFTP • GLUE • DRMAA • JSDL • SRM • RNS/Naming • Also produces profile documents such as: • Basic Security Profile • HPC Basic Profile • Secure Addressing Profile • Secure Communication Profile www.gridcomputingnow.org

  18. OGSA WSRF Basic Profile v1.0 • OGSA needs a stable Web Services infrastructure… • …but it is a design objective that OGSA be infrastructure agnostic • Hence WSRF basic profile for OGSA • There could be other basic profiles for OGSA • Normative reference specifications • WS-I Basic profile 1.1 & Basic security profile 1.0 • WS-addressing • WS Resource Framework & WS Notification • WS-security • When WS Resource Transfer is available, OGSA might release a new Basic Profile www.gridcomputingnow.org

  19. OGF Specifications • OGSA: Open Grid Services Architecture, which includes • JSDL: Job Submission Description Language • BES: Basic Execution Service • RSS: Resource Selection Service • ByteIO: POSIX-like IO • WS-DAI: Data Access and Integration • RNS: Resource Namespace Service • WS-Naming: Abstract Names • DMI: Data Movement Interface • SAGA: Simple API for Grid Applications • DRMAA: Distributed Resource Management Application API www.gridcomputingnow.org

  20. Native API DRMAA/SAGA WS-I compliant SOAP toolkit DRMAA/SAGA Native API Native API WS-I compliant SOAP toolkit WS-I compliant SOAP toolkit proprietary API standard API standard API proprietary API proprietary protocol proprietary protocol standard protocol standard protocol standard protocol Native Protocol Engine Native Protocol Engine OGSA-BES OGSA-BES OGSA-BES Standard APIs vs Protocols Workload Manager Client Workload Manager www.gridcomputingnow.org From Building Blocks for the Grid, Chris Smith, eScience2007

  21. Further reading • A snapshot of standards from DMTF, W3C, SNIA, OGF, OASIS, IETF, ITU and others can be seen at https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/wiki1479 • Chris Smith’s Building Blocks for the Grid gives one view of the OGF specifications: http://grids.ucs.indiana.edu/ptliupages/presentations/OGFStandards_Dec10-07.ppt • Wikipedia has useful articles on the SDOs and many of the specifications, with links to more detailed information www.gridcomputingnow.org

More Related