[glue-wg] New Endpoint and Service types

[stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk]

Florido Paganelli [mailto:florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se] said:
> We can agree on consistency but not on longevity. The main 
> issue here is
> that InterfaceExtension is NOT an Open Enumeration, that means is not
> supposed to be kept in a defined list of items or a registry like Open
> Enumerations.

InterfaceExtension is supposed to be a formatted combination of a Name and a Version. That's because the schema doesn't support tables, so if you made InterfaceName and Version multivalued you would have no way to know which Version applied to which Name. I would expect that the Name component of InterfaceExtension would be an open enumeration - it could either be taken directly from the existing list or maintained separately.

> The above is just that I foresee that attributes used in discovery of
> Computing Services and Storage Services are becoming completely
> different, that for me is a contradiction, because it shows we have no
> unifying model.

I would expect that the standard way to discover Endpoints would continue to be selection on the InterfaceName as it is now. What we're trying to decide here is how to deal with the specific case where one interface (webdav) is an extension of another (http). Even for storage that's the exception, most data access protocols stand alone, and we already have agreed InterfaceNames for them which have been in use for many years. For example, the agreed name for xroot access is "xroot" - as far as I know there is no RFC or GFD for that anyway, it's a HEP-specific protocol.

Stephen
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.