[gin-auth] Re: [mgi-auth] FYI: VO naming

[Catlett Charlie]

A TLD  would  take some time to sell (and might not be achievable).

But  <something>.<existing_TLD> is certainly easy.

GGF owns ggf.net by the way, but it's not used.

One could also imagine something like <gridname>.ggf.net ?

CeC


On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:48 AM, Dane Skow wrote:

>
> It's not the first time a .grid TLD idea has come up. I don't know  
> what is involved in creating one. I'm sure it's not trivial, but  
> none of the country codes or .org/.com/.biz really fit.
>
> As of 2 minutes ago, I now own the grid.name domain so we might use  
> that one. It doesn't have well established connotations (though I  
> believe the intendition is for it to be used for individuals'  
> names). It has a nice naming ring. Something to consider.
>
> I fully agree that "good enough" beats "better but not quite  
> available/robust" !
>
> (Note, I changed the mailing list over to the new gin-auth one.  
> Let's stop using mgi.)
>
> Dane
>
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 12:47 AM, <Rhys.Francis at csiro.au> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Well that's interesting because the issue I raised concerned the fact
>> that VO names weren't fully qualified names in any global sense,  
>> so once
>> we recognise other people's CA's and then VOMS servers, partial
>> qualification would no longer work.
>>
>> Afterwards I wondered if we should just use dns to qualify names, and
>> then I wondered if we could get a .grid domain (and if not perhaps
>> .grid.net domain).  We could let Dane run it :), then he can create a
>> subdomain for each grid then we can call our VO servers and our VOs,
>> whatever we like, if our software fully qualifies a right with the
>> domain name of the server and its list of VO, groups and subgoups in
>> which the right is defined.
>>
>> I am not an expert on dns and domain name spoofing so I don't know  
>> if it
>> is a good or a bad idea.
>>
>> The problem of the ontologies used by VO servers and hence the
>> identifiers used to denote rights seems hard, especially as the  
>> rights
>> are enacted by gateway services (not by the VO server), so a  
>> common way
>> of specification for gateway actions is required if we are to  
>> agree on a
>> set of common rights.  I think this means we need the smallest  
>> possible
>> set of the simplest possible rights to start with.
>>
>> Rhys
>>
>> 0417 376 476
>> 03 9669 8135
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-mgi-auth at ggf.org [mailto:owner-mgi-auth at ggf.org] On  
>> Behalf
>> Of Olle Mulmo
>> Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2006 10:18 PM
>> To: mgi-auth at ggf.org
>> Subject: [mgi-auth] FYI: VO naming
>>
>>
>>
>> The issue of VO names came up at the GGF sessions last week. This is
>> just an FYI to let people know that EGEE has taken the approach of
>> DNS-alike, hierarchical names. ("Alike" in the sense that an actual
>> DNS entry is not required, but that it should be a reasonable
>> confidence that no name space clashes will occur.)
>>
>> Unfortunately, this naming convention has not been enforced to date.
>>
>> /O
>>
>> PS. Shouldn't this mailing list get renamed?
>>
>