[glue-wg] No audio

[Maria Alandes Pradillo]

Dear all,

> for us to agree on two things:
> 1) are the proposed changes in Stephen's slides complete and accurate?
> 2) for you and Stephen to classify each change into
>    a) good idea,
>    b) neutral (no clear benefit and no harm), and
>    c) not a good idea.

I would just like to mention here that even if for me all these changes are c), we already discussed all of them with Florido and Balasz one year ago in the context of the EMI project. Then we agreed to implement the changes in the BDII to integrate ARC resources. So currently Florido´s requests are available in the BDII and they coexist with the current GLUE 2 specification without problems:

- Both GLUE2GroupID=resource and GLUE2GroupID=services can be used
- Both GLUE2GroupID and GLUE2GroupName can be used

This seems to be working fine in production (it´s probably not available in all BDIIs yet, since this is only available from version 5.2.17 or higher and some sites still run older versions).

I also want to mention that getting rid of GLUE2GroupID=resource in EGI/WLCG implies a lot of effort and has a very big impact in many different things: information providers, clients, applications interacting with the BDII, BDII internal code... So it´s not an option. I´m afraid we need to be backwards compatible here. And in any case, changing this has such a big impact that I think none of us is entitled to take this decision, we would need to escalate this to EGI and WLCG management.

> that you know are contentious: DIT/insertion points and perhaps
> GLUE2GroupID.
> - What role needs or benefits from this information in LDAP rendering
> specification: the user, the information provider, the BDII/ldap
> administrators?

The changes are not needed or represent any benefits to any middleware service running a resource BDII. As I mentioned before, the motivation to implement these changes was to integrate ARC resources in the BDII. 

I understand that ARC now wants to push these changes also in the GLUE 2 specification, but we have to make sure we are not breaking anything in the current production infrastructure.

I wonder whether we can agree on a solution that maintains the current specification and maybe extends it to include Florido´s changes?

Regards,
Maria