[glue-wg] Summary of changes in LDAP GLUE2 rendering as requested in last meeting

[Balazs Konya]

hi,

On 9/19/2012 12:08 PM, stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
> It wasn't done in a hurry, we discussed it in public over several months. You
> could have participated but you chose not to. The decisions were agreed by
> those who did participate, mainly me, Laurence, Maarten Litmaath and David
> Horat, and no-one, including you, disagreed.

that is just glite. it is a single technology provider.
yes, ARC at that time did not participate in the ldap discussion because we 
concentrated on the xml rendering.

but when we tried to follow the old draft for ldap rendering we run into 
problems in ARC. Also discovered that not even the deployed glite 
implementations follow the old draft. This clearly indicates that the old draft 
requires an update before it can be submitted to OGF pipeline. So, we carried 
out a thorough review and update of the ldap rendering document.

but: instead of discussing the past, i'd like to look forward and discuss how to 
progress with the ldap rendering document.

> That seems like a clear
> consensus to me.

it seems to me like a clear lack of involvement from other technology providers

> Your objective seems to be to change the document to
> retrospectively make the BDII non-compliant. I don't think that's legitimate,
> and as far as EGI is concerned it's also irrelevant - the deployment of the
> existing implementation is essentially complete and that isn't going to
> change regardless of what the GLUE WG decides, it is simply not possible to
> make substantive changes at this point.

the old bdii-centric rendering document/approach is not suitable for other mw 
providers (ARC, UNICORE). This became obvious when the BDII integration tests 
started.

You still did not explain my why it would not be possible to make changes in the 
glue2 ldap deployment in EGI. Let me know which GLUE2 consumer from EGI 
(operation) would be broken.


bye,
Balazs