[glue-wg] Fwd: Re: New attribute for GLUE 2.1: StorageShare.ViewID

[Maria Alandes Pradillo]

Dear Paul,

> The point is: yes, I can publish something in dCache info-provider that allows a
> client to get the right answer, but either the client needs to know some dCache-
> special thing, or the solution is fragile and will break in the future.

Which clients are you talking about here?
 
> True, we hoped it wouldn't be necessary to have a special document for GLUE
> 2.0 as GLUE 2.0 should handle this use-case without profiling.

Then what you may want to start is a discussion on writing a similar document for GLUE 2.0 and involve more people from WLCG on this task. The GLUE WG is not the right place to bring this discussion until you get agreement from WLCG.
 
> Yes, I guess they gave up forcing everyone to use it because the initiative failed -
> -- although nobody in WLCG management has made this explicit.

Well, it´s very explicit. Sites need to manually send their installed capacities every month using the REBUS reporting feature to be able to generate the WLCG accounting reports. They don´t use the BDII for this and they are not planning to use it.
 
> As you say, the current REBUS accounting is broken: the numbers don't match
> up.  Let's try to fix it.

No, I haven´t said that. I have said BDII and WLCG accounting reports do not show the same numbers in terms of installed capacities. But what WLCG relies on is WLCG accounting reports.
 
Regards,
Maria