 |
 |
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 ====================================