Dear Owen, I understand your concerns, nevertheless I believe that it is time for the GLUE spec to be exposed to a larger audience for review (that means going public comments). We have been digesting concepts for more than one year and it is time now to close the pending issues, clean-up the spec, align the rendering to different concrete data models and send everything to the larger audience for review. This will allow us to concentrate for a 60 days period on a more extensive implementation activity. Also, other groups can use a clean snapshot to evaluate our work and express a different viewpoint. At the end of this period, all the feedback will be applied to the specification and, depending on the amount of changes, the spec can be asked to go again on public comment or, in the best case, to the proposed recommendation. Proposed recommendation are a stable basis for further experience and review towards the state of full OGF recommendation. Given our working conditions, I consider going public comment soon as a necessary step of the engineering process for GLUE. The community will promote it to a proposed recommendation when the spec will be considered mature. I took note of the technical comments that I could extract from your e-mail and I wish to see more of them any time in the future. Regards, Sergio Owen Synge wrote:
Dear all,
The best way to destroy Glue, is to use poorly defined objects, and untested entities relations, that are proprietary to a single or small and legacy subset of Grids, particularly with untested ideas. This will invalidate the purpose of taking your Grid specific views to the OGF.
Can I please request that members of Glue trail their ideas on their own grids. I fear some members are unwilling to separate the context of their grids from the greater grid community.
Examples include, binding a minority standard (SRM 2.2 and only its static spaces) into the Glue schema when numerous other examples exist such as GPFS, and NFS v4. Binding a minority authentication mechanism (VOMS) when SAML and numerous other standards are more commonly used. This may be forgivable if the people involved had tested these representations, I know from the threads on the mailing list that these ideas are new.
I wish to complement Laurence on trying to stop the destruction of his work on the Glue standard, but this continued tight coupling to minority Grid services (VOMS/SRM 2.2) will lead to a legacy standard that all future grids should abandon in favour of something workable for them, if you have not even tested your ideas you should not be proposing them as a standard, that's your Grid's research work and not for OGF, which is for consolidating the Engineering objectives of interoperability. Please consider rolling out these suggestions on your own information systems AND get them WORKING before adding them to a inter grid standard.
Regards
Owen Synge
I do not represent Dcache or DESY in my above objections, just my education as an engineer. Engineering is often about rejecting use cases so more important objectives can be achieved. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi