 |
 |
> -----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. Ewan