Showing documents 1-10 of 93.   |
|
Document |
Title |
Document Type |
Author(s) |
Publication Date |
Area/Group |
 |
GFD.201
|
EMI StAR – Definition of a Storage Accounting Record
|
INFO
|
H. T. Jensen, J. K. Nilsen, P. Millar, R. Müller-Pfefferkorn, Z. Molnar, R. Salli
|
2013-04-22
|
Management
UR-WG
|
|
Abstract:In this document the EU-project European Middleware Initiative (EMI) describes a storage accounting record (StAR), defined to reflect practical, financial and legal requirements of storage location, usage and space and data flow. The defined record might be the base for a standardized schema or an extension of an existing record like the OGF UR and this document is intended as information to be taken as input for incorporating storage resources into the OGF UR.
|
 |
GFD.197
|
Example set of DFDL 1.0 properties
|
INFO
|
S. Hanson
|
2012-09-06
|
Data
DFDL-WG
|
|
Abstract:This document provides a set of DFDL properties that can be used as defaults for creating DFDL schema.
|
 |
GFD.190
|
Mapping between DFDL 1.0 Infoset and XML Data Model
|
INFO
|
S. Hanson
|
2011-08-30
|
Data
DFDL-WG
|
|
Abstract:This document defines the mapping from DFDL 1.0 Infoset to W3C XDM, and from W3C XDM to DFDL 1.0 infoset.
|
 |
GFD.189
|
Relying Party Defined Namespace Constraints Policies in a Policy Bridge PKI Environment
|
INFO
|
D. Groep, J. Jensen
|
2011-06-06
|
Security
CAOPS-WG
|
|
Abstract:Relying Party Defined Namespace Constraints (RPDNC) are limitations on the subject namespace issued by X.509 certification authorities (CAs) that are defined and enforced by the end-point at the relying party side. As grid authentication based on X.509 credentials provides the subject DN as a handle that identifies the authenticated entity, the capability to ensure subject name uniqueness is of critical importance in ensuring overall integrity of the authentication system.
This document described the rationale and use cases for relying party defined name space constraints, and lists the set of desired features a policy language expressing such constraints should have.
|
 |
GFD.182
|
The VOMS Attribute Certificate Format
|
INFO
|
V. Ciaschini, V. Venturi, A. Ceccanti
|
2011-08-01
|
Security
OGSA-AuthZ-WG
|
|
Abstract:This document provides a complete description of the VOMS AC format, both syntax and semantics. It also describes the related extensions that must be used in a proxy certificate to make it fully VOMS-compliant.
|
 |
GFD.181
|
OGF-Production Grid Infrastructure: Glossary of Acronyms and Terms, Version 1.0
|
INFO
|
E. Urbah
|
2011-03-20
|
Architecture
PGI-WG
|
|
Abstract:The Production Grid Infrastructure Working Group (PGI-WG) is elaborating documents permitting to improve interoperability of Production Grids.
The purpose of this ‘Glossary of Acronyms and Terms’ is to provide an expansion of acronyms and an unambiguous definition of terms used in the context of a Production Grid.
It is based on the ‘OGSA® Glossary of terms’ GFD.120, the ‘GLUE Specification v. 2.0’ GFD.147 and the PGI ‘Vocabulary’ Wiki page.
The root terms are ‘Data processing’, ‘Administrative domain’, ‘Trust’ and ‘Federation’.
It provides a minimum background information about Grids, but does NOT attempt to justify the definitions or the context in which they may be used. The reader is referred to external documents for further explanation where necessary.
|
 |
GFD.180
|
OGF-Production Grid Infrastructure: Use Case Collection, Version 1.0
|
INFO
|
M. Riedel, J. Watzl
|
2011-03-20
|
Architecture
PGI-WG
|
|
Abstract:The Production Grid Infrastructure (PGI) working group works on a well-defined set of standard profiles, and additional standard specifications if needed, for job and data management that are aligned with a Grid security and information model that addresses the needs of production Grid infrastructures. These needs have been identified in various international endeavors and are in many cases based on lessons learned obtained from the numerous activities in the Grid Interoperation Now (GIN) community group. Therefore, PGI can be considered as a spin-off activity of the GIN group in order to feed back any experience of using early versions of open standards (e.g. BES, JSDL, SRM, GLUE2, UR, etc.) in Grid production setups to improve the standards wherever possible. This particular document is a survey of common use cases provided by different stakeholders of PGI profiles or standard specifications. Such stakeholders include production Grid and e-science infrastructures as well as technology providers. The goal of this document is to have a foundation for a set of important requirements to be addressed by the PGI set of profiles and/or specifications.
|
 |
GFD.175
|
Translating From DCN to NDL and Back Again
|
INFO
|
J. van der Ham
|
2011-01-24
|
Infrastructure
NML-WG
|
|
Abstract:The topology descriptions used at Internet2 are provided in an XML format for use in the Dynamic Circuit Network suite. The topology descriptions developed by the University of Amsterdam is the Network De- scription Language.
In August and September 2009 Jeroen van der Ham worked at Internet2 on the translation of topology descriptions. This report describes some of the findings in creating this translation.
|
 |
GFD.173
|
Network Services Framework v1.0
|
INFO
|
G. Roberts, T. Kudoh, I. Monga, J. Sobieski, J. Vollbrecht
|
2010-12-15
|
Infrastructure
NSI-WG
|
|
Abstract:Version 1.0 of the Network Services Framework describes a framework to support the request and management of Network Services; it allows an application or network provider to request Network Services from other network providers. The framework covers the interface, protocols, agents and associated services. The Network Service Interface (NSI) is the interface between two software agents that communicate via the NSI protocol.
This document should be read in conjunction with each of the NSI Network Service informational documents and its counterpart protocol recommendation.
|
 |
GFD.170
|
Inter-Domain Controller (IDC) Protocol Specification
|
INFO
|
T. Lehman, C. Guok, A. Lake, R. Krzywania, M. Balkcerkiewicz
|
2010-11-29
|
Infrastructure
NSI-WG
|
|
Abstract:This document defines the detailed specifications and implementation requirements for the Inter-Domain Controller Protocol (IDCP). This document level of detail is intended to be sufficient to support independent implementation efforts.
This specification is provided to the OGF NSI Working Group as an informational document. The objective of this submission is to provide another example of a currently deployed protocol in this area, in case it is helpful to the ongoing NSI standardization efforts.
This protocol development work began as part of the DICE Control Plane Working Group. DICE is a collaboration amongst DANTE (GEANT), Internet2, CANARIE, ESnet, USLHCnet, and others. This protocol has been implemented and is currently deployed by ESnet, Internet2, GEANT AutoBAHN, USLHCnet, and others.
The IDCP defines a protocol and associated message formats that enable the dynamic provision of network resources across multiple administrative domains. The IDC architecture supports dynamic networking, the concept by which network resources (i.e. bandwidth, VLAN number, etc) are requested by end-users, automatically provisioned by software, and released when they are no longer needed. This is in contrast with the more traditional “static� networking where network configurations are manually made by network operators and usually stay in place for long periods of time.
The IDC protocol defines messages for reserving network resources, signaling resource provisioning, and gathering information about previously requested resources. These messages are defined in a SOAP web service format. This document and others relating to the IDCP are maintained at the IDCP Control Plane web site: www.controlplane.net.
|