hi, On 9/19/2012 12:08 PM, stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
It wasn't done in a hurry, we discussed it in public over several months. You could have participated but you chose not to. The decisions were agreed by those who did participate, mainly me, Laurence, Maarten Litmaath and David Horat, and no-one, including you, disagreed.
that is just glite. it is a single technology provider. yes, ARC at that time did not participate in the ldap discussion because we concentrated on the xml rendering. but when we tried to follow the old draft for ldap rendering we run into problems in ARC. Also discovered that not even the deployed glite implementations follow the old draft. This clearly indicates that the old draft requires an update before it can be submitted to OGF pipeline. So, we carried out a thorough review and update of the ldap rendering document. but: instead of discussing the past, i'd like to look forward and discuss how to progress with the ldap rendering document.
That seems like a clear consensus to me.
it seems to me like a clear lack of involvement from other technology providers
Your objective seems to be to change the document to retrospectively make the BDII non-compliant. I don't think that's legitimate, and as far as EGI is concerned it's also irrelevant - the deployment of the existing implementation is essentially complete and that isn't going to change regardless of what the GLUE WG decides, it is simply not possible to make substantive changes at this point.
the old bdii-centric rendering document/approach is not suitable for other mw providers (ARC, UNICORE). This became obvious when the BDII integration tests started. You still did not explain my why it would not be possible to make changes in the glue2 ldap deployment in EGI. Let me know which GLUE2 consumer from EGI (operation) would be broken. bye, Balazs