1. GIN & the Standards Activity
The HPC Profile WG

2. Where are we now? GIN is 1 year old:
I=Interoperation
I=Interoperability
Pragmatic operational decisions (Interoperation)
Authentication/Authorisation
Identity Management
Information Services
Jobs Submission
Data & Files
Applications 2

3. The Interoperability Initially a lower priority
Some demonstration with JSDL
NGS (GridSAM gateway), NAREGI, CROWN
Expanding importance within GIN
Feedback to standards group
Requirements to software providers for products
Early operational experience
Effectively ‘closing the loop’ between: Standards, Implementers & deployers 3

4. The state of play in jobs in 2006
JSDL (Job Submission Description Language)
Recommended specification Jan 2006
BES (Basic Execution Service)
Draft describing job submission API
HPCP (High Performance Computing Profile)
Pragmatic combination of BES & JSDL
Focussed on job submission to HPC clusters 4

5. HPCP Interoperability at SC06
Started as implementation activity
Validate specifications
Expanded engagement with GIN
Software providers engaged with production grids
GridSAM, Globus, CREAM/gLite, ChinaGrid, … 5

6. Feedback from SC06 Revised BES & HPCP specifications
Revised Security Support
Username/password over SSL
X.509 certificates
Both WG’s moving to last call
Future Work:
Data staging 6

7. Further Interaction Main topic of next session Information Systems
Formation of GLUE-WG
Standard definition of attributes
Rendering into different systems
BDII, CIM, UDDI, MDS, …
Data Management
Activity within GSM WG 7

8. Notes from the discussion

9. Notes from Discussion BES model maps to many different systems
Proxy services using standards ontop of production grids
Access to production resources
Without need to redeploy production software 9

10. Big Issues - Authentication
Username/password mixed enthusiasm
Need delegation & strong authentication
Different emphasis in web service world
Delegation MUST not be made a blocker to interoperation
Pragmatic half-way house needed to go ANYWHERE
Migration path from where we are now to
Production grids ‘demand’ X.509
Some split between proxy certs and pure certs
If not going to use proxy certs. BIG migration issues
Enterprise grids ‘demand’ username/password
X.509 support varied in toolkits
If multiple security profiles implementors (& deployers) will need to support several to ensure interoperability
Need to decide
Policy as to which deployers support
Part of service meta-data
Client discovery issue
Discussed elsewhere – need report back to GIN
AG to send report back to SJN for redistribution to GIN
Proposed solution for HPCP – traction elsewhere in OGF & OGSA?
Use myProxy as a way of providing delegation. 10

11. Actions
GIN participants want to be able to use multiple auth mechanisms:
Provide feedback to OGF security actions
MyProxy use: Grid for research majority
Username/password use: Enterprise & some research grids
What constraints come from GIN that need to be made visible to OGF?
Security conversion services may be one way forward
EL to send to Security Ads for discussion at area meeting. 11

12. Process Interaction GIN  Standards
‘Large fraction of production grids believe that JSDL & BES are a way forward for job submission’
First instance standards compliant service gateways will provide means of accessing production grid resources
Expand beyond JSDL & BES 12

13. Deployment of HPCP Deploy ‘permanent’ services for support
GENESIS II, NGS (GridSAM), EGEE, DEISA
Commitment to implement HPCP and track changes
First phase: deploy SC06 service (now!)
Second phase: deploy revised service after HPCP public comment period (~3-6 months)
Discussed this week at OGF go out to public comment
Code changes needed are small (~few days work)
Have a ‘sensible’ security story (revised profile)
Third phase: part of native code (In the future – maybe!)
GIN ‘leaders’ to forward notifications of specs entering public comment to GIN lists 13

14. Big Issues Data Staging HPCP focussed on core use case Support in JSDL
HPCP has optional data staging support
HPCP focussed on core use case
Data staging not essential for this use case 14

15. HPCP Profile(s) Core profile: ‘pure’ job submission
First Extension: data staging as important 15

16. Need to discuss
SRM Specification 16