Access Grid Meeting 
9/30/02


Overall Architecture

   Mike Daw:   How do you plan to organize the development?  Will the code base be on CVS?  
               How will you plan who does what?

   Ivan:       Arch and design are thinking part of project.  We need to get
               architecture and design done well.  In the end, we'll probably use 
               bugzilla, etc., to coordinate development.  Monthly meetings will 
               provide the means to sync with the team to find out who's doing what, 
               how the development is going, what issues have arisen.


   Mike Daw:   So you're leading the arch/design?
     
   Ivan:       Yes, that is our responsibility

   Mike:       Argonne will develop some services to fulfill goals of funding.
               Generally, the AG will be developed to allow third parties to 
               participate in the development.


   EVL:        Will AG2 provide a data and API framework that can be built upon?

   Ivan:       Yes, that is what we mean by services.


Virtual Venues

   EVL:        Are services bound to an individual in a venue or to the venue?

   Ivan:       Both.  Users can provide services, but those are transient services,
               only available in the venue when the user is in the venue.


   Jennifer TvH: Does security restrict receipt or transmission?
      
   Ivan:       We haven't anticipated that as a requirement.  It depends on how 
               authorization is defined, but it is reasonable and we should consider it.
               We should be planning for it.

   Terry:      It is a reasonable requirement.


   Shawn@NCSA: AG2 sounds like it will place a huge burden on the venue.  If the venue
               server is not working, the meeting won't take place.  Now, one can just plug the
               IP addresses into rat and vic.  Later, that won't be possible [due to stream encryption].

   Ivan:       The venue server has been very reliable, so this should not be a problem.

     Is the "venues fabric" owned by a particular organization?

      - No, the fabric is more like the space in which web pages live.  So,
      venues can be freely linked.  This can be restricted through the security 
      mechanisms.


   Chris@Rutherford: Will this require meetings in AG2 to be more formal?

   Ivan:       No.  We should be able to enable security without disabling any of the
               functionality of the current release.


   Jennifer:   Do you have a rough timeline for release of AG2?

   Ivan:       We have to spend time on the arch and design to get everything rihgt.  We
               will probbaly demo AG2 functionality at SC.  Pie in the sky would be to 
               have an alpha in January.

               SCGlobal 03 should be built on a very stable AG2 environment, with very exotic 
               functionality that has been easy to develop.


   EVL : What are crucial differences between 1.0 and 2.0?

   Ivan:       1.0 was really a prototype; 2.0 will be a real product

               - Wider deployment of venues (some sites have their own venue server already)
               - Simple integration of services should make richer venues will publish a set 
                 of interfaces and standards that should help everyone create venues and add 
                 things to them
               - Security: the default transmission method will be secure
               - Incorporation of network services and capabilities brokering, which will
                 enable people with varying capabilities to participate


   EVL:        Can venues be deployed internally and externally, like an intranet is private?

   Ivan:       Venues should be widely deployed, within a firewall, outside a firewall,
               everywhere.  An institutional venue would be restricted within the 
               institution.