[glue-wg] How to finalize the LDAP draft was Re: No audio

Mon Sep 23 12:17:51 EDT 2013

Florido,

> Trying to shorten this quite painful process, we reasoned with Balazs
> and we have a proposal.
> Looking at the document structure, we can move the DIT proposal in an
> appendix, as "Examples of existing implementations".

OGF has profile and community practice document types that are better suited to hold examples.

> As a side note, where do we store meeting's presentations?

http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=4

> Therefore I'd like to present my slides as well, to give a hint of what
> others than gLite did, and argument a little about the issues we faced
> during integration (already presented in 21st of May 2013 presentation)

You could present after Stephen finishes his presentation and we finish discussing his material.

> It is no point in my opinion to proceed like this. Instead, I know the
> answer to this question for each of the changes in the LDAP document. I
> can explain who-benefits-of-what on the fly while we revise the document.

First we need to agree that the purpose of the specification is to enable "discovery interoperability" for users and the software they use.

Second, we need to agree that to enable "glue 2 aggregation across publishers" we need a profile or community practice document. EGI, NorduGrid, and others may define different profiles..

Thanks,

JP

On Sep 19, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se> wrote:

> Hi JP, all
> 
> First of all thanks for this effort of mediating to finish this LDAP
> document.
> 
> On 2013-09-18 09:55, JP Navarro wrote:> Florido,
>> 
>> Sorry the phone connection failed.
>> 
>> I think you, Stephen, and the working group chairs (myself and/or
> Shiraz) should go thru the document, as you suggest, and review all the
> changes,  but first...
>> 
> 
> I think Maria or Laurence who are the BDII developers I worked with
> during EMI should be there as well, if they want, to give a technical
> point of view. I don't think we should underestimate implementation
> issues; it's clear from Stephen's talk that existing implementations matter.
> 
> Trying to shorten this quite painful process, we reasoned with Balazs
> and we have a proposal.
> Looking at the document structure, we can move the DIT proposal in an
> appendix, as "Examples of existing implementations".
> 
> Then the discussion, and the main topic of the document, will only be
> about the schema and naming choices, including a clarification of the
> meaning of GLUE2GroupID.
> Of course for this we will need another review round, but it's minor
> changes and we think this is a good compromise with Stephen's claim that
> we should make the document and the specification "independent" on the DIT.
> 
> This said, some not-so-short comments to your requests:
> 
>> So that we can produce a concise public summary of the changes, 
> 
> As a matter of fact, this was already produced long time ago by me and
> Balazs. Here's the timeline:
> 
> 1) An email with title:
>  "Summary of changes in LDAP GLUE2 rendering as requested in last
>   meeting"
> sent by me September 17th, 2012.
> that lists the changes in the LDAP Rendering document, and open
> questions we wanted to be answered. I guess it was not too fine grained,
> so that's why it failed to get the attention of the group.
> 
> 2) Reasons why we decided to review the draft and do the integration
> work in EMI are explained in my OGF36 presentation (9th October 2012):
> 
>  http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/172?download=
> 
> 3) For a list of changes of what has been done in practice by the
> software providers (that is, ARC and gLite), you should refer to a
> presentation that was due the 26th of February 2013, that I sent to JP
> and Shiraz with an email with title
>  "GLUE2 LDAP State of the Art"
> on March the 21st.
> Since there was no time to present, I created an update of that
> presentation that I actually presented on the 21st of May 2013, and that
> is probably somewhere in Shiraz or JP machine. I didn't manage to find
> it on redmine. I'd be glad to upload it somewhere.
> 
> As a side note, where do we store meeting's presentations?
> 
>> I would like for us to agree on two things:
>> 1) are the proposed changes in Stephen's slides complete and accurate?
> 
> As Balazs said, they're very gLite-centric. From this point of view I
> don't consider them that accurate, cause he doesn't have a broad view of
> what other LDAP GLUE2 implementations are out there (Mainly ARC, UNICORE
> are those I am better aware of).
> Therefore I'd like to present my slides as well, to give a hint of what
> others than gLite did, and argument a little about the issues we faced
> during integration (already presented in 21st of May 2013 presentation)
> 
>> 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.
>> We can do this during our next working group teleconference after
> Stephen presents the rest of his slides.
>> 
> 
> This can be done based on the facts presented in slides I listed above,
> and the slides I sent to the meeting:
> 
>  http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13121?download=
> 
>> Before that next teleconference, I'd like to request that you reply to
> this working group with the following information about the proposed
> changes 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?
> 
> It is no point in my opinion to proceed like this. Instead, I know the
> answer to this question for each of the changes in the LDAP document. I
> can explain who-benefits-of-what on the fly while we revise the document.
> 
>> 
>> Florido and Stephen,
>> 
>> Are you available the next two GLUE WG teleconference dates September
> 24 or October 6 at 4 PM CET (9 AM CST) so that Stephen can present the
> rest of his slides?
>> 
> 
> I understand Stephen's need to finish expressing his views.
> In such case then, I'd like to show my slides as well.
> 
> Thank you for your mediation action!
> 
> Cheers,
> Florido
> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> JP
>> 
>> On Sep 17, 2013, at 6:08 PM, Florido Paganelli
> <florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I couldn't follow the end of the meeting as suddenly I couldn't hear
>>> you, I guess it's because Shiraz dropped out of the server.
>>> 
>>> I hope we will manage to find an agreement to close the LDAP document. I
>>> think me, Stephen and a mediator and whoever wants to follow the
>>> proceedings should sat down in front of the document and accept-reject
>>> changes. In this way we can also quickly show how things are done in
>>> reality and comment about it.
>>> 
>>> As I said, since the integration effort was done during EMI, the
>>> implemented technology follows almost all the lines described in that
>>> the July 2012 review. And we tried to stick to the real implementation
>>> as much as possible.
>>> So I don't understand Stephen's fear that current implementations do not
>>> follow these guidelines. They actually do!
>>> 
>>> I really think the only dispute is about the DIT tree. I already said
>>> many times I'd like at least implementation examples to be there, but if
>>> this is so bad, it can be dropped to some other document.
>>> 
>>> I am in for some follow-up meeting to complete Stephen's slides, but
>>> mind that I sent a couple of slides with ARC's view on things.
>>> At the cost of repeating myself, Stephen slides are the the best summary
>>> I've seen about what happened in LDAP so far, as they focused discussion
>>> on real problems we had to face during integration.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Florido
>>> --
>>> ==================================================
>>> Florido Paganelli
>>>  ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration
>>>  System Administrator
>>> Lund University
>>> Department of Physics
>>> Division of Particle Physics
>>> BOX118
>>> 221 00 Lund
>>> Office Tel: 046-2220272
>>> Email: florido.paganelli at REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se
>>> Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli
>>> ==================================================
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> glue-wg mailing list
>>> glue-wg at ogf.org
>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ==================================================
> Florido Paganelli
>   ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration
>   System Administrator
> Lund University
> Department of Physics
> Division of Particle Physics
> BOX118
> 221 00 Lund
> Office Tel: 046-2220272
> Email: florido.paganelli at REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se
> Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli
> ==================================================