Hi Ewan,
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Coles
>>
>> I said I would follow up on why the SHA-2 alarms are raised as 'critical'
>> rather than 'warning' given that the former means that we have no way of
>> keeping things simple where we know that the endpoint is not a concern. I
>> was aware that the upgrade was not mandatory but specifically (took an
>> action and) asked within EGI about the alarm types and here is the
>> response from Tiziana Ferrari:
>>
>> "by returning WARNING none of the site administrators would be actively
>> notified that they are running non SHA-2 compliant services.
>>
> That's clearly not the case. A 'warning' alarm may not have saddled the
> ROD teams with the responsibility of raising tickets, but it doesn't
> actually prevent the EGI people that care about this from doing it
> themselves, and if they did that they'd actually get the responses from
> the sites back too.
>
> This reads to me as "We're so much more important than everyone else
> that we chose to deliberately abuse the system and create a load of
> hassle for other people to save a bit for ourselves."
>
> Not good.
Within the UK we could/would anyway have raised tickets via ROD on the back of warnings. Maarten has followed the route you suggested for glexec and heroically created lots of tickets. However, given where we are (and supporting the goal if not the method) I think it would be more hassle than it is worth to insist on a change at this point unless there are strong arguments I'm not aware of to do it. I know it has created extra unnecessary load (I'm sorry about this situation and will encourage more site consultation in similar future decisions) but it is not unmanageable and for the infrastructure overall it might be needed (given that August is a slow month etc.).
Jeremy
|