Minutes from today call - next call 14 Oct 2010
Dear all, the minutes from today call are available here: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/PhoneMeeting2... next call is planned in a week time: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/PhoneMeeting2... Regards, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi - Policy Development Manager EGI.eu - Amsterdam - The Netherlands - http://egi.eu
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Andreozzi said:
the minutes from today call are available here:
On the public comment: I have no problem with that per se, but it would be rather hard to make any significant changes to the LDAP rendering given that we already have it in production! Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
On the public comment: I have no problem with that per se, but it would be rather hard to make any significant changes to the LDAP rendering given that we already have it in production!
on the ldap I actually do not expect any relevant comment since gLite is probably the only adopter. Anyway, if meaningful comments are provided and accepted by the group, the actual adoption can come later in time when major upgrades are possible. Cheers, Sergio
I'm no expert on OGF procedures, but is it accurate to say that comments on a finalized standard could simply result in recommended changes to future versions of the standard? Our renderings are also part of the standard, right? Perhaps this also has to do with the distinction between a standard and implementations. Is the statement that OGF produces standards and NOT implementations, accurate? Other organizations besides OGF produce implementation that (hopefully) comply with OGF standards, but none of them is an "OGF implementation". The GLUE2 schema is final, so comments on it will only affect future version of the standard. The GLUE2 renderings are NOT final, correct? Or, is the GLUE2 LDAP rendering final? JP On Oct 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, <stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> <stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Andreozzi said:
the minutes from today call are available here:
On the public comment: I have no problem with that per se, but it would be rather hard to make any significant changes to the LDAP rendering given that we already have it in production!
Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
JP Navarro [mailto:navarro@mcs.anl.gov] said:
Or, is the GLUE2 LDAP rendering final?
I think it would depend on what kind of changes were requested and how strong the arguments were. Nothing is completely unchangeable, but modifying the schema once in use can be very hard - that's why it has always taken a long time to implement new versions of the schema, even when they're backward-compatible. Of course we might also find that in practice something we've done doesn't work well and has to be changed anyway. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
HI JP, I'm no expert on OGF procedures, but is it accurate to say that comments
on a finalized standard could simply result in recommended changes to future versions of the standard? Our renderings are also part of the standard, right?
yes, but Stephen had a different worry. The conceptual model was approved a year ago and the document will not be changed unless there will be a new version. The renderings which will be captured in different OGF documents are not yet formally approved. There are many ways to map the conceptual model into a concrete schema. If some person comments on a change to the LDAP schema, while this is deployed in production, then we will have to decide by consensus if we change the schema which will go into the spec or keep the current version while postponing its revision. The decision will depend of course on the relevance of the suggested changes. Perhaps this also has to do with the distinction between a standard
and implementations. Is the statement that OGF produces standards and NOT implementations, accurate? Other organizations besides OGF produce implementation that (hopefully) comply with OGF standards, but none of them is an "OGF implementation".
yes. This is generally true; anyway in our case we talk about concrete schemas which can reasonably be part of a standard as they define the way to structure data to be exchanged and interpreted. Cheers, Sergio
The GLUE2 schema is final, so comments on it will only affect future version of the standard. The GLUE2 renderings are NOT final, correct? Or, is the GLUE2 LDAP rendering final?
JP On Oct 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, <stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> < stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Andreozzi said:
the minutes from today call are available here:
On the public comment: I have no problem with that per se, but it would be rather hard to make any significant changes to the LDAP rendering given that we already have it in production!
Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- Sergio Andreozzi - Policy Development Manager EGI.eu - Amsterdam - The Netherlands - http://egi.eu
Quoting [JP Navarro] (Oct 07 2010):
I'm no expert on OGF procedures, but is it accurate to say that comments on a finalized standard could simply result in recommended changes to future versions of the standard?
In terms of OGF standardization, the standard is actually not finalized before it goes through public comments. I understand that you have the implementation of the spec in production, but for OGF the spec is still a draft document, not a standard.
Our renderings are also part of the standard, right?
Perhaps this also has to do with the distinction between a standard and implementations. Is the statement that OGF produces standards and NOT implementations, accurate?
Yes.
Other organizations besides OGF produce implementation that (hopefully) comply with OGF standards, but none of them is an "OGF implementation".
Correct.
The GLUE2 schema is final, so comments on it will only affect future version of the standard. The GLUE2 renderings are NOT final, correct?
And that is also all correct, AFAIK. As a side note: it is rare that a draft specification with just one implementation receive comments which require significant implementation changes. Even if the comments do, it is up to the group to discuss the comments, and to follow those requests, *or* *not* (within reason though). OTOH, public comment is a good opportunity for the implementor group to make sure that impl and spec do actualy match. Best, Andre.
Or, is the GLUE2 LDAP rendering final?
JP On Oct 7, 2010, at 10:02 AM, <stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> <stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Sergio Andreozzi said:
the minutes from today call are available here:
On the public comment: I have no problem with that per se, but it would be rather hard to make any significant changes to the LDAP rendering given that we already have it in production!
Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- Nothing is ever easy.
participants (4)
-
Andre Merzky -
JP Navarro -
Sergio Andreozzi -
stephen.burke＠stfc.ac.uk