[glue-wg] Notes: GLUE WG session at OGF 40

[Navarro, John-Paul F.]

On Feb 10, 2014, at 4:06 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se> wrote:

> On 2014-01-20 21:38, Navarro, John-Paul F. wrote:
>> Notes from the Wednesday January 15, 2014, OGF 40 GLUE WG session.
>> 
>> [...]
>> Enumerations ------------ We discussed our current enumerations,
>> ServiceType and InterfaceName, and the proposed change process
>> circulated just prior to the meeting. We anticipate the need to use
>> the same process to maintain all other Enumerations relevant to GLUE.
>> We noted that the group has agreed to publish approved Enumerations
>> lists is CSV format so that they are software consumable. We agreed
>> to discuss and possibly approve enumerations and the enumeration
>> process at our next call currently scheduled for January 28.
> 
> Any follow up from this? I could not follow this one too.

We discussed the enumeration review process suggestions from Stephen below.

Florido, since you've done some work to load initial enumerations into Git, would you be willing to take Stephen's suggestions, modify as you think appropriate, and turn them into a brief set of suggested enumeration maintenance steps that we can discuss at our next meeting.  If you don't have time Shiraz or I can do it. At our next meeting we could discuss the proposed process and approve it.

JP

> From: <stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [glue-wg] New Endpoint and Service types
> Date: January 14, 2014 at 6:45:46 AM CST
> To: <florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se>, <glue-wg at ogf.org>
> 
> glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Florido Paganelli said:
>> Adding these values for me would be easy. The problem is that the group
>> didn't decide a procedure to _approve_ them to make them _official_,
>> mostly because I promised I would propose one but I never did.
> 
> This should be a lightweight process - the main point is to record the values which are in use. In general there's no problem with adding new types on request; the only issues to consider are:
> 
> 1) Namespace - if it uses a DNS-style name does the requestor reasonably justify relating it to that domain, i.e. do they speak for the relevant project or is it clearly related to a standard service provided by the project.
> 
> 2) Checking that we don't already have something suitable in the existing list.
> 
> 3) Sanity checking that the value is naming something that matches the conceptual purpose of the enumeration.
> 
> I don't see any reason that can't be done quickly with an email vote. Anyway the worst case is that you end up with an unsuitable value which has to be changed later, and that will generally only cause problems for whoever requested it.
> 
> In this particular case I don't see any problem with the QCG-specific names, QCG is a well-defined project so we can assume they know what they're doing, or will sort out their own problems if they don't. org.oasis.notification is more general so it would be useful if someone could do a quick check that it makes sense - personally I know nothing about it.
> 
> Stephen