Hi Florido,
Maria Alandes Pradillo [mailto:Maria.Alandes.Pradillo@cern.ch] said:
On behalf of the DPM team, could you please also consider adding:
I think these do need some more discussion ...
- "DPM" to ServiceType
isn't it possible to assign an organization do DPM? I know nothing about it.
org.<organizationname>.dpm?
Like for example org.cern.dpm? If this type of syntax is needed, please let me know and I will ask my DPM colleagues.
- "org.webdav" and "org.xrootd" to InterfaceName
xroot has already been discussed extensively and we made a decision - I think the decision was to use "xroot" for the protocol name but we should check.
For webdav I think the "org." prefix isn't adding much here - probably we should just use "webdav" as it's a well-known protocol defined in an RFC so there's no issue of a name clash, but there may be other views. Anyway there are likely to be other interested parties - dcache at least - who should express a view.
I agree with Stephen, if there is no organization it doens't make sense to have 'org.' there. If it's a simple standard webdav interface, it's perfect to have only webdav there.
But I also wonder what is the type of such interfacenames -- it seems to me that these two should be in Endpoint.Technology instead. The name of the interface should be something like org.<organizationname>.webdavenhanced if it's not just plain webdav
If that is not enough then you should look into capabilities for EMI-ES and craft proper ones, like:
data.transfer.xrootd data.transfer.webdav
I don´t have the answer to these questions since I´m not a Data Management expert. Is the WG normally following up this type of things with the relevant experts? Or how do you normally proceed to take a decision? Regards, Maria