glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Litmaath said: Note the asymmetry! The ACLs for the name space need not be equal to those of the SRM v2.2 space. Putting both kinds of ACLs into a single StorageShare object implies they _must_ have different schemes.
If I've understood what you're saying I don't think the namespace ACLs should be in GLUE at all, the granularity is too fine - for example the ACLs could be different for every directory in the tree. In theory we are always told that paths don't matter for SRM, so the client should just negotiate with the server once it finds a space it can use. For VOs (or sites) which insist on having a fixed path mapping I think they need to ensure that the ACLs are set appropriately without needing to have them published explicitly.
StorageShare * --> 1 StorageEnvironment
Capacity can just stay with StorageShare for simplicity. It will then keep reporting the numbers as experienced by the FQANs mentioned in the ACL entries.
Well, if we do it properly I think we'd need to split the Capacity into pieces - the Used space would be per VO (or FQAN), but the Total and Free space are by definition shared and hence should be in the Share (Reserved may need more thought). For me the main reason to go this way is to reduce the duplication of information, so keeping many-times-duplicated values for the sizes doesn't seem that good. Stephen