Since we are talking about dynamically advertising the requirements of services (and not clients) within hypothetical information services, we should talk explicily about "service plumbing" and not "client plumbing". For example:

It is implicit that we will be putting in effort to implement clients that fit within the realm of options provided by the services that those clients intend to use. (And it is has become clear from several from these email threads which services those are.)

Thus "grid islands" become "grid DAGs".

>- Currently all sentence are read on this mailing lists looked like

requiring only listed options to be used for authorization. And this is

wrong from my point of view.

the thousand other possibilities...

------------------------------------------------------------

Morris Riedel

SW - Engineer

Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division

Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC)

Forschungszentrum Juelich

Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1

D - 52425 Juelich

Germany

Email: m.riedel@fz-juelich.de

Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/JSCPeople/riedel

Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651

Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656

Skype: MorrisRiedel

"We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity"

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich

Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498

Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe

Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),

Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender)

>------Original Message-----

>-From: Aleksandr Konstantinov [mailto:aleksandr.konstantinov@fys.uio.no]

>-Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:40 PM

>-To: Morris Riedel

>-Cc: pgi-wg@ogf.org

>-Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Security Strawman

>-On Friday 27 March 2009 14:39, Morris Riedel wrote:

>-> But Aleksandr - I think we all agree to the VOMS scenario - come on

that’s

>-> something where we can't go currently... :-)

>-As I already said I'm not suggesting to profile other information whihc

can be used

>-for authorization.

>-I said that such information should not be disallowed. Just write profile

in such way

>-that other options

>-are up to deployment. Currently all sentence are read on this mailing

lists looked like

>-requiring only

>-listed options to be used for authorization. And this is wrong from my

point of view.

>-A.K.

>->

>-> ------------------------------------------------------------

>-> Morris Riedel

>-> SW - Engineer

>-> Distributed Systems and Grid Computing Division

>-> Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC)

>-> Forschungszentrum Juelich

>-> Wilhelm-Johnen-Str. 1

>-> D - 52425 Juelich

>-> Germany

>->

>-> Email: m.riedel@fz-juelich.de

>-> Info: http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc/JSCPeople/riedel

>-> Phone: +49 2461 61 - 3651

>-> Fax: +49 2461 61 - 6656

>->

>-> Skype: MorrisRiedel

>->

>-> "We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity"

>->

>-> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich

>-> Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498

>-> Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe

>-> Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),

>-> Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender)

>->

>-> >------Original Message-----

>-> >-From: Aleksandr Konstantinov

[mailto:aleksandr.konstantinov@fys.uio.no]

>-> >-Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:29 PM

>-> >-To: Morris Riedel

>-> >-Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] OGF PGI - Security Strawman

>-> >-

>-> >-On Friday 27 March 2009 12:24, you wrote:

>-> >-> Aleksandr,

>-> >->

>-> >-> could you give me one example for this:

>-> >->

>-> >-> >- I do support idea of attribute based authorization. But can't

>-> understand

>-> >-> why other information authenticating the client should be disallowed

>-> from

>-> >-> making authorization decision.

>-> >->

>-> >-> I seek to understand what you mean.

>-> >-

>-> >-Most brutal example would be DN of X.509 certificate.

>-> >-More sophisticated could be distrust of specific computing resource

for

>-> specific

>-> >-VOMS service.

>-> >-

>-> >-A.K.

_______________________________________________