[glue-wg] New Endpoint and Service types

[Florido Paganelli]

Hi Paul,

On 2014-04-04 14:58, Paul Millar wrote:
> Hi Florido,
> 
> On 25/03/14 12:00, Florido Paganelli wrote:
>> After reading all the discussion with Stephen, I am convinced of one
>> thing:
> [..]
>>> Capability is better; however, the OGSA definitions are (currently)
>>> higher-level functionality; they don't (currently) specify which
>>> protocol the endpoint supports.
>>>
>>> Additional definitions could be added but I'm not sure this is the
>>> correct approach.
>>>
>>
>> This is the only correct approach, despite what OGSA definitions are. If
>> Capabilities are open enumerations, we're free to set another route, and
>> create specific ones for protocol.
> [...]
>> I vote for creating better Capabilities.
> 
> Sounds good to me.
> 
> My I suggest we have a standard way of mapping an OGF and RFC
> specification to a Capability?  This could be a URL or a URN.

We have two ways: EITHER we just insert the URN in the description,
OR we want a machine to be able to parse it and hence we add an 
additional field in the Capability_t.csv. 

I think it would be reasonable to add a specific field for better 
machine-readability.

> That way, publishing the correct Capabilities becomes straight-forward
> and no further registration is needed.
> 

true indeed. But we still have to agree on names.

I am thinking of something like (omitting some fields for readability):

Capability_t             | Description                                         |...|  Reference documentation
=======================================================================================================================
  data.transfer.http     | capacity of moving a file from one network location |...| https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6585 |
                         | to another using the HTTP protocol                  |...|                                     |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  data.transfer.https    | capacity of moving a file from one network location |...| https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2660 |
                         | to another using the HTTPS protocol                 |...|                                     |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  data.transfer.webdav   | ....

Also, agreeing on which RFC is crucial in my opinion.

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 Location: Fysikum, Hus B, Rum B313
 Office Tel: 046-2220272 
 Email: florido.paganelli at REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se
 Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli
==================================================