Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:
> I'll (eventually) notice, my test job checks it. Also it doesn't look as
> though rfio is going away any time soon since a lot of the new data
> management code seems to be based on it!
I am somewhat alarmed by this statement. Up until now I have understood
that, while it is required that sites support gsiftp, rfio was optional.
A number of sites in LCG do not run rfio and, I imagine, do not wish
to be made to do so (mainly for security reasons).
My concern is if new datamanagement code has been written *presuming*
rfio is available, then will these sites now be *forced* to install rfio?
And so a previously optional protocol becomes mandatory... when was
this discussed/decided? If it was not discussed, at what point did the
middleware developers start assuming that rfio would always be available
and why were they not stopped?
There are two issues here: one is the potential insecurity of the rfio
protocol itself; the other is the (absence of a !) process which allows
the middleware development to turn an optional service into a mandatory
service without comment or discussion.
--
=======================================================
Dr O J E Maroney # London Tier 2 Technical Co-ordinator
Tel. (+44)20 759 47802
Imperial College London
High Energy Physics Department
The Blackett Laboratory
Prince Consort Road, London, SW7 2BW
====================================
|