Hi Morris, I see nobody reacted yet on this, and actually it came with a "SPAM" label. FWIW, some comments:
(1) Considering interops between Grids we should provide an attribute that basically indicates if a user may 'belong' to a specific production Grid (e.g.DEISA, EGEE, NAREGI).
No, this an admittedly bad idea. A VO is a VO, a Grid is a Grid. Several Grids may serve the same VO, it already happens. Even if it was not ambiguous, I do not even see where could you place this attribute, and what possibly can make use of it?
Currently, VOs seem to be the top hierarchy - however I think it would be good to bring up attributes for that to distinguish at policy level which elements of policies should be used, e.g. users of TeraGrid in DEISA have a special policy, etc.
This is something to be implemented in the respective Policy Decision Point services of these Grids, or whatever analogous service they utilize. It has nothing to do with a VO. A VO may pre-date any Grid, you can't expect the VO attributes being all re-shuffled every time a new Grid appears or an old one gets renamed.
(2) DEISA view, addressing the question of Etienne slightly), taking my talk of OGF25 into account if you would like to know more:
Talk about how users can involved with DEISA: http://www.ogf.org/OGF25/materials/1557/2009-03-02_DEISA_DECI_Riedel.pdf
I don't see what is the question here? Fine, DEISA has this differentiation between two different kinds of VOs, so what is the implications for others, or for standards?
(3) Agreements between attribute differences between job management and data management
What attributes should be different, and why? Do you think a user can have different privileges regarding job and data management, for example? How will you ensure consistency?
(4) What do others think about the FQANs and its use - some critics or missing links I maybe have not talked about yet?
*I* think it is extremelly VOMS-specific term, and as such is internal to VOMS. I wouldn't spend time on profiling FQANs. Cheers, Oxana