[glue-wg] New Endpoint and Service types

[Maria Alandes Pradillo]

Hi Florido,

> > Maria Alandes Pradillo [mailto:Maria.Alandes.Pradillo at cern.ch] said:
> >> On behalf of the DPM team, could you please also consider adding:
> >
> > I think these do need some more discussion ...
> >
> >> - "DPM" to ServiceType
> 
> isn't it possible to assign an organization do DPM? I know nothing about it.
> 
> org.<organizationname>.dpm?

Like for example org.cern.dpm? If this type of syntax is needed, please let me know and I will ask my DPM colleagues.
 
> >> - "org.webdav" and "org.xrootd" to InterfaceName
> >
> > xroot has already been discussed extensively and we made a decision - I think
> the decision was to use "xroot" for the protocol name but we should check.
> >
> > For webdav I think the "org." prefix isn't adding much here - probably we
> should just use "webdav" as it's a well-known protocol defined in an RFC so
> there's no issue of a name clash, but there may be other views. Anyway there
> are likely to be other interested parties - dcache at least - who should express a
> view.
> >
> 
> I agree with Stephen, if there is no organization it doens't make sense to have
> 'org.' there. If it's a simple standard webdav interface, it's perfect to have only
> webdav there.
> 
> But I also wonder what is the type of such interfacenames -- it seems to me that
> these two should be in Endpoint.Technology instead. The name of the interface
> should be something like org.<organizationname>.webdavenhanced if it's not
> just plain webdav
> 
> If that is not enough then you should look into capabilities for EMI-ES and craft
> proper ones, like:
> 
>   data.transfer.xrootd
>   data.transfer.webdav

I don´t have the answer to these questions since I´m not a Data Management expert. Is the WG normally following up this type of things with the relevant experts? Or how do you normally proceed to take a decision?

Regards,
Maria