Hi All,
I hope you have (or have had) a good face-to-face meeting. On the conference
call previously we have discussed aggregate accounting and made moves to move
it out of scope.
I attach below, a valid and well formed record, using the definitions from
section 10 of the spec.
<UsageRecord>
<RecordId urwg:recordId="foo"/>
<UserIdentity>
http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"
xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">
<X509Data>
<X509SubjectName>cn=matt ford</X509SubjectName>
</X509Data>
</UserIdentity>
<StartTime urwg:description="accountperiod">2003-06-16T08:24:32Z</StartTime>
<EndTime urwg:description="accountperiod">2006-05-08T10:34:58Z</EndTime>
<CPUDuration urwg:description="sum over accountperiod for
UserIdentity">234234324325</CPUDuration>
<WallDuration urwg:description="sum over accountperiod for
UserIdentity">23423434</WallDuration>
<Status urwg:description="all complete jobs over accounting period for
UserIdentity">completed</Status>
</UsageRecord>
This I think certainly constitutes a valid aggregate record. It would require a
farily significant rewrite to make this _not_ be allowed. I'm thinking of using
something like this to report total cpuduration for some of my users.
Is this against the spirit of the clarification we are trying to make, should
this be something that is allowed? The move away from aggregation is a big
one...or have I been too liberal in my interpretation (but I'd argue against
this)
Matt.
