[glue-wg] Some thoughts on storage objects

[Jensen, J (Jens)]

Maarten Litmaath wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
>> Where did the network description go?  We used to have one.
[..]
>>
>> I think we need to put it back, and StorageAccessProtocol seems to me
>> the more obvious location.
> 
> We discussed it a few meetings ago and felt that it overly complicated
> the schema for the amount of gain in the short/medium term.
> For example, insecure RFIO and DCAP are published without restrictions,
> and in practice this is not a real problem today.
> Since we want to converge on 2.0 ASAP, we felt such enhancements were
> better considered for 2.1.  Would that be OK for you?

So for those of you not in the telcon today, I learnt that the CESEBind 
aims to solve some of the same use cases, so we should aim to resolve 
CESEBind first (to be discussed in the telcon tomorrow at 12:00 UTC).

And the idea was certainly not to introduce an overly complex solution, 
if it cannot be solved with a few attrs or at most one extra class then 
it's not worth doing.  Maybe the CESEBind is this class.

Cheers
--jens