[ogsa-hpcp-wg] FW: [Fwd: FIle Staging Extensions Comment]

[Steven Newhouse]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Morgan [mailto:mmm2a at virginia.edu]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 6:40 PM
> To: humphrey at cs.virginia.edu; Steven Newhouse; csmith at platform.com;
> Richard Ciapala
> Subject: [Fwd: FIle Staging Extensions Comment]
>
> I wasn't able to post this to the HPCP mailing list.
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > From: ogsa-hpcp-wg-owner at ogf.org
> > To: mmm2a at virginia.edu
> > Subject: FIle Staging Extensions Comment
> > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:38:31 -0500
> >
> > You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message
> has
> > been automatically rejected.  If you think that your messages are
> > being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at
> > ogsa-hpcp-wg-owner at ogf.org.
> >
> > email message attachment
> > > -------- Forwarded Message --------
> > > From: Mark Morgan <mmm2a at virginia.edu>
> > > To: ogsa-hpcp-wg at ogf.org
> > > Subject: FIle Staging Extensions Comment
> > > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:36:30 -0400
> > >
> > > I recently went to implement some of the file staging extensions
> that
> > > the HPC group has described.  In particular I was looking to
> implement
> > > SCP and I figured that if I was going to implement that spec., it
> made
> > > sense to do it according to a standard rather than to come up with
> > > something new and non-interoperable.  However, in the process of
> > > implementing the specification, I came across a minor nitpick that
> I
> > > have concerns about.  Specifically, if I read the specification
> > > correctly, I believe that it is the case that a BES container is
> > > required by the spec. to fault if a user passes authentication
> > > information in the URI rather than using the file staging
> extensions.
> > > I'm confused as to why the group decided to prohibit a valid form
> of
> > > extension to the JSDL and BES specification.  I understand that
> that
> > > method of passing information may not be the best choice or most
> secure
> > > choice, but I would think that it makes more sense for the HPC
> group to
> > > simply standardize on their way of passing authentication
> information
> > > rather than prohibit other, in my opinion, equally valid
> authentication
> > > mechanisms.  The fact of the matter is that Genesis II has, in the
> past,
> > > allowed authentication information to be passed in the File staging
> > > URIs.  At this point, it seems like I have the choice of forgoing
> > > backwards compatibility in favor of HPCP File staging extensions
> > > compliance, or forgoing HPCP File staging compliance in favor of
> > > backward compatibility where I really see no good reason why both
> > > couldn't be achieved.
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to cause trouble here, I'm simply curious as to the
> > > reasons for this decision and specifically wanted to mention this
> in
> > > case the HPC group hadn't thought of this potential issue before.
> > >
> > > -Mark
> > >
>