[Dropped security-area from cc list. Please leave it off.] I agree with Steven. We need to separate what is specified from what is acceptable in certain deployment scenarios. There certainly are deployment scenarios where PKI is required, just as there are scenarios where it is undesirable. I think the choice of focus on PKI and username/password offers promise of supporting a broad range of deployment scenarios. Von On Jan 22, 2007, at 1:32 PM, Steven Newhouse wrote:
I specifically think these additions are not supported, nor are they supportable, for high-performance computing resource access under OGSA either in philosophy or in implementation as written.
'access under OGSA' is a bit of a null statement IMHO. Both of the proposed mechanisms (username/password & X.509 certificates) are viable in some deployment scenarios - perhaps not in others. The key requirement is to keep moving.
Waiting for the results of WG's that are just having BoFs is not really a viable solution.
Steven -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Steven Newhouse Mob:+44(0)7920489420 Tel:+44(0)23 80598789 Director, Open Middleware Infrastructure Institute-UK (OMII-UK) c/o Suite 6005, Faraday Building (B21), Highfield Campus, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
-- ogsa-wg mailing list ogsa-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-wg