Hi Jens, Since this is a quite specific use case, you might want to consider putting this characteristic into 'OtherInfo' of the StorageAccessProtocol. (I still need to add this field.) Would this be sufficient? Cheers, Felix --- Felix Ehm IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 CERN, Switzerland ----------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Litmaath Sent: Donnerstag, 3. April 2008 14:10 To: Jens Gunner Jensen Cc: glue-wg@ogf.org; Flavia Donno Subject: Re: [glue-wg] Some thoughts on storage objects Hi Jens,
Where did the network description go? We used to have one.
The idea is that certain protocols can be used only locally, or on certain networks.
For example, a single StorageElement can have a range of GridFTP data movers on the WAN, a LAN protocol internally, and an OPN link which accepts UDP-based high speed data transfer like the astronomers use.
If you are a local job you can ask it "do you support gridftp" and it would say yes, but you cannot necessarily access the GridFTP data movers from the worker nodes - and it would be less efficient than the
LAN protocol.
I think we need to put it back, and StorageAccessProtocol seems to me the more obvious location.
We discussed it a few meetings ago and felt that it overly complicated the schema for the amount of gain in the short/medium term. For example, insecure RFIO and DCAP are published without restrictions, and in practice this is not a real problem today. Since we want to converge on 2.0 ASAP, we felt such enhancements were better considered for 2.1. Would that be OK for you? Thanks, Maarten _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg