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

Florido Paganelli florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se
Mon Sep 23 13:44:52 EDT 2013 

Hi JP,

On 2013-09-23 18:17, JP Navarro wrote:
> 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.
> 

I'll have a look at that, thanks.

>> As a side note, where do we store meeting's presentations?
> 
> http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf/glue-wg?folder_id=4
> 

I didn't mean OGF slides, these I know, I meant all the other meetings,
i.e. various phone meetings and such.

>> 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.
> 

Perfectly OK, these were meant as a follow-up

>> 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.
> 

"For users" -- at this point I must say I don't understand the concept
of "users" the group have. I must have misunderstood this when I started
co-operating, clearly. As I understand better these concepts my mood wrt
contributions is changing.

> 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..
> 

Mh, ok. Allow me to be extremely polemic here. I had high hopes for
GLUE2 to be a poweful interoperability tool for GRIDs. But after all
these discussion I am more and more convinced that we are heading for a
big fail, with a plethora of redefinitions of things that one has to
read to be interoperable.

If we ever wanted to keep it easy, we failed somewhere along the way, IMHO.

Let's fix this LDAP thing soon then.

Regards,
Florido

> 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 
>> ==================================================
> 


-- 
==================================================
 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
==================================================

More information about the glue-wg mailing list