[glue-wg] New Endpoint and Service types

[Florido Paganelli]

Hi Paul,

On 2014-04-04 19:01, Paul Millar wrote:
> Hi Florido,
> 
> On 04/04/14 15:46, Florido Paganelli wrote:
>> On 2014-04-04 14:58, Paul Millar wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> Let me give some concrete examples:
> 
> An endpoint that supports RFC-6585 publishes the capability
> 'org.ietf.rfc-6585'
> 
> An endpoint that supports RFC-2660 publishes the capability
> 'org.ietf.rfc-2660'.
> 
> An endpoint that supports SRM v2.2 publishes the capability
> 'org.ogf.gfd-129'
> 
> An endpoint that supports GridFTP publishes the capability
> 'org.ogf.gfd-20'
> 
> An endpoint that supports GridFTP v2 publishes the capability
> 'org.ogf.gfd-47'
> 
> I hope you see how, given any RFC or any GFD, I know exactly how to
> publish a capability; and, given the capabilities of any endpoint, I
> know exactly which RFCs and GFDs it supports.
> 

I can see how, indeed.

These that you listed above make more sense for InterfaceName than for
Capabilities. As Stephen pointed out, there is no much additional
information in the reversed domain name there. But for me is nice to
have to track down origin, so I'd be happier to have InterfaceNames the
way you listed them above.

But since each Endpoint can only have one InterfaceName, then a service
supporting multiple protocols should in principle have as many Endpoints
as the supported protocols.

We can overcome the above using capabilities, but then one must me more
specific on what one can *do* with that protocol:

Capabilities, the way I read them as they're described in GFD.147, are
ways to discover functionalities, thus the namespace is not about the
organization but tells about the functionality.

Hence if one has an Endpoint whose interface supports more than one
protocol, one could publish:

data.transfer.rfc-2660
security.authentication.rfc-2660
data.transfer.gfd-47

and so on.

What do you think? what do the others think? It would be nice if this is
discussed among storage services developers.

Regards,
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
==================================================