Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


Canonical Meeting Template (as a reminder):

1. Review of meeting agenda
2. Addressing issues

  • Description/Status of issue
  • Review of action items from previous meetings if any
  • Recommended actions and discussion of same
  • Close issue or identify next action items

3. Status updates from SMT members

  • Status update on significant activities
  • Review of prior open issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of new issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)


1. Review of Meeting Agenda: Any comments/additions? 


2. XSEDE2 Reporting (Leslie Froeschl


  • Previous discussion archived: SMT Meeting - December 19, 2019
  • (1/16) IPR11 compilation will begin on February 1. Email with instructions will be sent out in the next few days, and L2 PMs will be communicating with people in their area about pulling your section's part of the report together. Please be responsive and get your text in by the due date, and make sure staff in your area do the same. 
    • Risk review email was sent out earlier this week. Please be sure to review all risks assigned to you before the end of January. 
  • (1/30) IPR11 starts 2/1! PY10 plan info will come out late next week.


  • Thank you for efforts thus far on IPR11. We are in good shape to submit report on time next week. 
  • PY10 Planning begins next week on 2/17! See Annual Planning Process for the schedule/dates for the various tasks and link to planning spreadsheets.



3. New NSF Service Provider Resources  (Victor Hazlewood) 


  • (12/19) Added to agenda.  
    • Need to get status/have discussion about how things are going on this call. 
    • Open Storage Network: initial kickoff meeting was Oct 31, meeting minutes sent out to all the affected XSEDE group for integration.  Victor following up with those XSEDE groups. Entry put in RDR for Open Storage Network
    • Stony Brook: had one initial call at the summer quarterly meeting. Victor following up with Robert to do an SP kickoff in Jan
    • U Del: Scheduling kickoff meeting in January.  Doodle poll already sent to them. 
    • Will drop off Bridges-2 and Expanse for detailed status since PSC and SDSC are plugged in so well to XSEDE.  (Ken at PSC and Bob at SDSC, for example)
  • (1/16) Darwin gave timeline of later summer for fall allocations. 
    • Dave H. hadn't heard of DISCO before. Related to Open Storage Network? 
      • Victor talked with them yesterday. MRI award that has already been awarded w/ stipulation that states they will be joining XSEDE. They still need to do XSEDE Federation application. 
      • Planning to pull team together for call after XSEDE Federation application letter is submitted
    • Cancer computer is not on the list. 
      • They still need to go through application process. Will be added once the XSEDE Federation application comes through. John will ping them re. status of their application letter.
    • Kickoff meeting with OSN was held. 
      • Need to get connected with allocations, XCI (Victor sent email to JP & Shava)
    • Kickoff meeting with U Delaware was held. Working to get that connected to allocations process by Oct. 2020 allocations cycle. 
    • Stony Brook has not been responsive to Victor so still working on that. 
  • (1/30): sent 3 emails to Robert Harrison/Stony Brook that haven't been returned. If he doesn't respond soon will be looking for suggestions. John can reach out if they don't respond. 
    • Open Storage Network: They haven't connected with RAS so asked them to do that. Would be helpful to talk to Jim Glasgow (NCSA) about this to prod him to respond. 
    • U Del: Kickoff meeting was held & minutes sent out. They want to say they've made significant progress getting connected to allocations by summer time for late Aug/early Sept XRAC meeting. 
    • Johns Hopkins: waiting for Gayme to submit XSEDE Federation membership. 
  • Status of new SP resources:

    SP Resource




    NSF Award

    Target Date



    Bridges-2 press release

    Nick Nystrom


    Summer 2020



    Expanse press release

    Mike Norman


    Summer 2020


    U Delaware


    Rudi Eigenmann


    Summer 2020

    Open Storage Network

    Collaboration (5)

    Collaboration (5)


    Summer 2020


    SUNY at Stony Brook

    Ookami press release

    Robert Harrison


    Summer 2020


    Johns Hopkins Univ

    DISCO news item

    Dennice Gayme




  • Victor has been working to get in touch with all of these providers with mixed results. Reminder that John is willing to ping people if needed. 


4. XDCDB and production server access policy (David Hart  ) 


  • (12/19) Added to agenda: SMT Meeting - December 19, 2019.  
    • Following the recent XDCDB security incident, we closed/inactivated a number of XDCDB roles, and we are now fielding requests from users to turn some of them back on. We want to clarify the XSEDE approach (if not formal policy) for responding to such requests consistently.

      Ops & RAS will: 

      • Assess all accounts (Victor will help)
      • Notify people & collect info & put into buckets of staff, SPs, etc.
      • Suggest policy for governing these things
  • (1/16) Working through roles on XDCDB that have access to database & closing out some. Don't know where some came from so may shut those off and see if anyone complains. Not terminating any accounts that have been used in last month. 
    • Victor still working on drafting a policy.
    • Some people only access to get data for IPR. Should they email to get access? In those cases those people have not been removed. Susan still has access.  
  • (1/30) Went through all XDCDB roles. Inactivated a bunch & no one has complained. Done with cleanup. Victor working on drafting a policy. 
    • Identified a couple odd SP cases & need to clarify policy on SPs having access to the database. Security is looking at this and updating the enterprise services standard doc. Adding how to request & be granted roles in the database. 
      • Main question is do we have official ways for SPs to get access to the database? Do we allow them to have access to all/part of database? They have home-grown capabilities that are questionable. 
      • Concern about people making mistakes that have impact on operation of XSEDE. Mostly locked down to read access.
      • One SP pinging database for user info. They should already have this info. 
      • Baseline security standard in doc to specify how you request & approve roles. Maybe need to go back and look at roles and people have to specify why they're requesting it. 
      • Have to support things that we didn't build /design system for. Don't want to unintentionally break things for SPs if we change something. Don't want to be stuck supporting legacy feature for SP. These are unofficial side things the SPs do. Are we required to support unofficial integration mechanisms? At what level can we say change this because we're no longer supporting? Creates dependency that we need to support for others. Prefer formal mechanism that we can support. Not clear if those making use of info should have access to that info. Are they XSEDE staff? Who are they sharing the info with? Nice to have someone document the use cases & see if it violates any issues. If they're not doing anything wrong, determine obligation to support going forward. 
        • TACC script was doing 72K logins/month to look up info about a user that he should already have. Figure out what he needs and how we can get him the info. Shouldn't let anyone do any craziness. Another issue with Jetstream. 
      • Rather document use cases and we evaluate as we normally would. Can come up with specs re. roles & how to access. Final approval by Dave & Greg. If they go beyond our privacy policy then that would need to be evaluated
      • They could pull info from XDMoD 


  • Dave collecting details about shadow sites some have set up to use XDCDB. 



6. Update on PRACE-RIST-XSEDE allocations process. (Ron Payne ) 


  • (10/24) Added to agenda.  
    • Agreement to use XRAS for any allocations requests for partnership
    • Detailed info being collected from PRACE & RIST to finalize & configure tool the proper way, get resources into RDR, etc. Need to know who at PRACE & RIST are the contact people who can respond quickly
    • John talked to SP Forum & XSEDE service providers about being involved in partnership.
    • Finalizing call itself to go out. All 3 groups have reviewed & approved. 
    • PRACE & RIST users can submit as guest or with a portal account. (Will not have to set up a portal account.)
  • (11/7) 
    • Ron met with Ken & Ester. XRAS instance has been set up & needs to be populated. Need info from PRACE and RIST to get the tool up and going still. Meeting at SC with PRACE/RIST folks to sort out final details. 
    • John discussed with SPF. Will follow up with allocated SP PIs. If this moves forward, in a year or so may do more substantial allocations. Need to make sure we don't violate any terms in their cooperative agreements with NSF. 
    • Finalizing call–should go out on Monday. Dates/template need to be reviewed by Dave (John forwarding to him today). Ron to follow up with ER so we can push this out once call is ready
  • (12/19)
    • No computing resources that need to be put into RDR for RIST as they're only providing support. 
    • Waiting for PRACE resource info. 
    • Deadline is in December. Will this be extended? John is asking this question because we don't have full info. If the decision is to extend deadline, let Dave know.
  • (1/16) 1 submission from last month's call. There were some questions that we need more info from submitter. Discussing possible reasons for low number. 
    • Next call will open early March/close end of March. Will review in April with award allocations starting in mid-May. Will need XRAS instance for this. 
      • Working with PRACE to get resources into XRAS. Working to get PRACE & RIST reviewers set up in system so they can review. 
      Identified where we've had some missteps. ACTION Ron Payne Ron, Dave, Ken, Phil, Bob, John to discuss this to make sure we're getting things done in a timely manner.Suggestion: make continuous opportunity/always open instead of having deadlines. Could still promote at certain times. 
      • Some timing/alignment issues with Japanese but will talk about this as an option.     
  • (1/30) 5 systems now set up in RDR for PRACE instances & being pulled by XRAS. Nothing from RIST yet. 
    • Another call going out in early March, closing end of March, allocations start mid-May.
    • Progress of talking to XSEDE SPs w/ allocatable resources about this partnership? John has talked to SP Forum but hasn't followed up with individual SPs. 
    • Have gotten review panelist names from RIST.  Waiting for those from PRACE. 
    • One submission from last open call. Some details requested. Response to that now being reviewed. Allocation is for startup on PRACE machine. 


  • Next call March 2. 
  • Had a call today about privacy guidelines and to ensure all parties on the same page. Derek & Alex drafting common statement about privacy. 
  • Ron starting to get folks from RIST submitting requests to be set up as reviewers. 
  • Will be requesting from Bob & Phil who from ECSS should be reviewers. Not sure how many ECSS reviewers we'll need at this point. Numbers have been low but hope to see it increase.


7. Interconnections diagrams (create 2) (John Towns ) 


  • (12/19) Added to agenda.  
  • (1/16) How to better articulate to review panel exactly how interdependent parts of XSEDE are. Tried to compartmentalize things but makes it harder to see interdependencies. Want to articulate in clear & consistent way. Help inform NSF about some of the complexities that aren't evident to them when they're developing solicitation. If they create multiple award scenario will create some dependencies across different project. 
    • Value in having different L2 areas represent in similar way
    • Dave: take all stakeholders into account
    • Bob: focused on interconnections between L2sACTION Ron Payne John & Ron to discuss off-line. 
  • (1/30) Defer to next meeting.
  • (2/13) Defer to next meeting.


  • Defer


7. PIF Submission Review: Integrate  online textbook exercises with CCRS toolkit (Ron Payne ) 


  • (1/16) Added to agenda.  
  • Integrate the online textbook exercises with the CCRS toolkit (Details emailed to SMT 13-Jan 2020)(1/16) Despite current lack of funds, we should continue to accept submissions and put into priority list where ever we feel they fit. 
  • Phil: Nice project, but cost seems high. Moderate impact in terms of overall project. $100K to integrate with one class. Would this same cost be required for other classes? 
  • Bob: Lowers threshold for starting with parallel computing. Same concerns about cost & how that will be divided between sites. Why should this be funded separately instead of through CEE funds since this is within their scope? (John: assume this is outside their budget.)
  • Greg: Idea is good, but cost doesn't seem justified. More detail on cost would be helpful.
  • Dave H: 12 mos to complete. XSEDE could only take advantage for 8 mos. How would investment have long-term impact if we invest in it. More details of long-term implications would be helpful. 
  • Emre: Need detailed budget. Any attempt to integrate into CSRI toolkit? Where will this be hosted? If on Cornell, will they support this for expected class sizes? Any attempt to host this on XSEDE resources? Process is such that people propose an idea and get feedback about value of it and whether they should take next step and pull together more detail. Long term impact and whether the cost is only for one class would be good to get answered prior to making a decision. Ron Payneto share this back with submitter. 
  • Ron requested answers to the questions from Susan but no response so tabling to next meeting.
  • Clarification that PIF funds have been depleted, but are keeping window open in case more funds become available as a result of underspending in any areas of the project. Plan to have a prioritized list of PIFs in case funds do become available. Also possible that if we have the opportunity to propose a follow-on to XSEDE2 that these ideas could be included as part of that. 
    • Suggestion that this should be conveyed to all PIF proposers. 
    • Ron will let proposers know as well as include in staff newsletter and on wiki page. 


Responses from Susan to questions: 

  1. In what way is this effort outside the scope of CEE’s current budget? To my understanding, CEE’s budget covers training material development and delivery, not tool development.  (this is of course an oversimplification)
  2. Would this same cost be required for integration with other classes? No additional cost would be requested for integration with the set of CVW topics. The MPI course implementation is specific to that class. Other groups would be welcome to use the tools to implement CCRS in their own courses.
  3. With the effort to take 12 months to complete, XSEDE would only benefit from the work for 8 months. How would this investment have long-term impact if we invest in it?
    - The MPI course will continue to be available through the TACC Portal, backed by containers running on TACC resources
    - The CVW materials will continue to be available through CAC’s web site, backed by containers running on CAC resources
    - The tools for others to implement will be available on GitHub
    1. Possibly should rise to top given amount of time required. 
    2. Merits going on the list but we may not get to it if we don't identify funds
    3. Feel good about adding to the list, but needs to be a shelf life. If funds become available before a certain date... During QM review PIF prioritization and can adjust/remove as appropriate. 
    4. If there is an extension to XSEDE with bridge funding, that could impact this. (John suspects we'll have at least 3 mos extension at this point)
  4. Where will this be hosted? If on Cornell, will they support this for expected class sizes? Any attempt to host this on XSEDE resources?
    We intend to host this at Cornell along with the CVW materials.  Training exercises are usually not compute intensive, and these materials are expected to be used asynchronously, so large resource needs are not expected, and containers for particular environments will allow the interactive training materials to outlive the lifespan of particular resources. However, it would technically be possible to host on XSEDE resources as well.
  5. In  addition, the SMT would like a detailed breakdown of the budget.
    1. TACC – approx. 7 weeks:
      1. 2 weeks: HTML development
        1. HTML CSS coding for proper display of exercises
        2. integration of scripts into HTML pages
      2. 2 weeks: 
        1. grade reporting, including integration with CCRS
        2. writing some missing testing scripts, 
        3. further development of testing scripts to do more elaborate reporting
      3. 1.5 week: integrating with SimGrid:
        1. report timings on software-simulated parallel computer
        2. integrate exercises for performance issues (exploration of broadcast strategies)
      4. 1.5 weeks: (speculative): code analysis on student submissions:
        1. analysis for common conceptual errors.
        2. feedback on style / other implementation options. 
    2. CAC – approx. 200 hours
      1. Adding interactive shell mode (20 h)
      2. Improved Singularity support, possible docker support (30 h)
      3. General UI improvements (20 h)
      4. Add to existing CVW modules and simplify API as part of the process, while documenting usage (40 h)
      5. Improved security features (30-50 h, comprises various features; as time permits)
      6. Image viewer / downloader (generalize to other file types) (30-50h; if time permits)


  • Ron will inform Susan that this will move forward when/if funds become available.

8. PIF Submission Review: Subscription to COmanage as part of CILogon service (Ron Payne ) 


  • (1/30) Added to agenda.  
  • To support use case prioritized recently by the UREP. This feature was not used in the past. Currently using the basic tier but want to upgrade to a higher/paid tier. 
  • How many people expected to use the new service? 
    • haven't done calculation. 3 stages to using this... starting more internally to help staff and then move out to all XSEDE allocated users. Users could make their own groups. 
    • One up-front cost per year. 
  • Not a lot of detail as to WHY we want this added service. 
    • Brought up through UREP. Needs were rated highly. JP to send more info. 
  • Would be helpful to see use case that this came from. JP will send this to the SMT


  • JP sent responses to questions. 
  • Beta is using internally for group management. Phase 2 is more user impact, push allocations/group management so any application in XSEDE can use to make decisions  & give users access using this group service. Phase 3: eco system, gateways
    • Do we still maintain accounting level at individual level or lose things and only have accounting at group level? This should not effect accounting. 
    • OSG can't differentiate who did something
    • As long as this is just an authorization & doesn't impact accounting/who does what on XSEDE. Simply service that anyone can look up to see if xyz is a member of xyz allocation in order to authorize for access to a tool.
    • Larger groups sometimes want to sub-allocate to someone in a subgroup. This could provide some of that. 
  • Time to implement across 3 phases. Phase 1: 6-9 month. Wouldn't wait to complete 1 before working on 2. Service likely up in 3 mos. Progression over time. Hope that by end of this year would have Phase 1 & 2 completed. 
  • Applicable to XSEDE follow-on?  Yes. Through this tool would integrate groups. Follow-on could renew license with provider & continue using the tool. 
  • PIF is to pay for 3rd party service. XCI has already identified staff to do the work.  What will XCI do if they don't get funds? Won't make improvements & XCI will focus on something else. 
  • Potential that there are unspent XCI staff funds that might be able to be used. 
  • Acceptable risk to make investment, brings value to the community. 


  • Move forward and put into priority list. 

9. PIF Submission Review: Password security for XSEDE users (Ron Payne ) 


  • (1/30) Added to agenda.  
  • Responses to questions that were submitted:
    • Was the UII team informed? From Alex: I’ve opened up discussion on this PIF with Maytal. The vast majority of coding work lies with the security team in the backend.  My guess is that the user portal team would possibly need to adjust error handling to accommodate this new condition if a user chooses a known bad password.  So we don’t expect a lot of development work on their end but we do need to coordinate with them.
    • Are there any other relevant databases besides the “have I been pwned” service? My interest is in covering as many compromised pw's as possible. From Alex: Yes, will develop this so allow the use of multiple databases and to account for the fact that these services may change, disappear, reappear, etc. over time.

  • Comments sent back to Alex: 
    • Need more info on level of effort needed from UII. Alex: sent a detailed email to Maytal.  I would need her to respond to my question in order to understand the level of effort needed from UI.
    • Service appears to be free. Will we pay for the service if we integrate with it? Building on someone's pet project? Relying on that service and it crashes? Are there other viable alternatives? Alex: The service is unique (although others like Mozilla are emerging) and is free to use for now.  This is not in the critical path for user account maintenance and self-service.  If the service is unavailable then we don’t get the benefit.  
    • Does their proposed budget cover all activity required by security & UII? Yes it does. 
    • Is this needed? Good to protect against bad passwords/enhance PW security. Alex: This is not needed.  It enhances security, esp. for a project that does not make extensive use of MFA.
    • Will they be handling passwords in plain text or only encoded? Concern about additional exposure to user passwords. Alex: Passwords are sent to the service encrypted in transit and strongly hashed.  There is minimal risk of exposure.
    • Abstract needs more details. Alex: will work to add more detail. 


  • Timely since UII team is updating account process for users. Could do some design to make simpler going forward. 
  • Interesting idea. Wonder how complicated it would make account creation process. Already need passwords with multiple characters etc. Could make it complicated to enter passwords. Whether valuable to make more secure or just creates more frustration. 
  • Potential to be more confusing for users. 
  • Live process while creating password. 
  • Concern they're promoting use of password manager–conflict of interest by encouraging use of their own thing. Is the have I been pwned service really a marketing piece for their password manager? Definitely a partnership of some kind. 
  • User experience is important. Don't want this to make more novice folks go away out of frustration. 


  • Not moving forward with this idea. 

Around the call up

Follow this basic outline:

  • Status update on significant activities
  • Review of prior open issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of new issues if any (and not addressed earlier in agenda)
  • Identification of recent improvements implemented

Updates from SMT members:

  • PI (John/Ron) - 
    • Talked with Irwin G-dep director for CISE. Shared that we are preparing directorate reports. Encouraged him to move along with solicitation for follow-on. He appreciated the input we provided to the blueprint doc. He indicated that blueprint is basis of solicitation. He & Manish have talked about release of solicitation. Don't know what progress they've made, but encouraging that they're discussing it. 
    • Hope we can maintain stability when solicitation comes out. Take measured approach, look at what is in solicitation.  
    • Talked to Manish. He was happy to receive response to blueprint doc. Good to know this is on their radar.
    • Budget release came out yesterday from NSF–XSEDE was appendix. John hasn't had a chance to review it yet
  • CEE (Kelly) - 
    • Emerging researchers national conference. Winner of undergrad research poster in CS: Livingstone College in NC. Winner did machine learning work using Jetstream. Linda to send to ER to promote. 
    • Will be on the road over next few weeks. LA 4 weekends, preparing for PEARC, training has released 3 roadmaps
    • UII working on revamping account creation process, improvements to publication process to reduce spam, ORCiD integration with publications
    • SGCI webinar highlighted XSEDE website as having good visibility
    • What happened with access for Lorna? Got caught up in follow up to security incident–she wasn't properly whitelisted. This has been resolved. Leslie will add note to instructions to remind people to check their access in the future
  • ECSS (Bob S/Phil/Sergiu) - 
    • Wrapping up papers for PEARC. ECSS impact & lessons learned paper
    • Collaborating with other groups. Sergiu to present to CARCC data facing track. 
  • XCI (Dave L/Craig) - 
    • No update

  • Ops (Greg/Victor) -  
    • No update
  • RAS (Dave H/Ken) - 
    • Making rounds to talk about field of science update. 
    • Gearing up for new staff members 
    • Updated allocations data set through 2019
  • Program Office (Ron/Leslie) - 
  • SP Forum (Ruth) -  
    • No update
  • UAC (Emre) -  
    • No update
  • NSF (Bob C) - N/A

Next Meeting:     SMT - February 27, 2020 

  • No labels