Hi Owen, Thanks for the complement :) I would first like to point out that glue schema is definitely NOT my work. Glue is a community driven activity in which I am participating as a member of that community. The excellent progress that we have made with glue has been due to the participation of everyone involved and in the way that we are collaborating together as a group. I understand your point of view and share it to a point, however, this is only one side of the argument. Like most standards for it to be successful, it has to be adopted by the community. One of the values of Glue is that it is being defined by the communities that need it so there is case for it to be adopted. However, there is a fine line in defining something general that meets everyones requirements and yet meets all existing use cases. Whatever your opinion is on various aspect of the VOMS/SRM use case and its lifetime, it is widely used and something that we can't ignore. The one things that we have learnt from all the schema discussions in the past is that whatever we define will have imperfections and will need to be revised in an newer version. It is important that we focus on the things that we believe we understand and which have been proven in deployment scenarios. For the things that we don't understand well and have little experience with we should spend less effort and wait until we understand them better. What we define for Glue 2.0 is not the end but just the beginning of a continual process of refinement a based on the feedback we receive from the real deployment. Laurence 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