Hi *,
The EGEE TCG met this morning.
http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=16652
It was a relatively "quiet" meeting.
There was a progress report on the gLite restructuring activity. The
"dependency challenge" is almost finished, there was also some
discussion about the next activity, which is "cleaner separation between
client and server packaging" of the services. This is progressing, but
very slowly.
There was a little discussion on the "service acceptance criteria", some
information on the required scale of a few services was presented.
There was a discussion on the plans to migrate VOMS to be based on
"pure" openssl. Right now VOMS has a dependency on GSI which implies a
globus-provided, somewhat out of date openssl. There was general
support for making this move, as it means that sites, experiments, and
middleware people can just use the standard system-provided openssl.
The plan is to first provide a server that can speak both "GSI" and
"pure openssl"; then move to a client that speaks only pure openssl; and
finally move to a server that only speaks "pure openssl". My apologies
if the terminology I'm using here is inaccurate; I remain a security idiot.
Daniele presented the ROC issues. There was a lot of discussion about
the common logging document, as well as on bulk DM operations.
The final issue was a request by LHCb for some changes in the LFC. One
of them was to provide an "external interface" to the administrative
functions of the LFC, allowing remote people (VO admins) to make changes
in e.g. the internal mappings; a statement was made that some site
admins were requesting this; it would be interesting to hear from these
people, I as site rep am well aware of the reasons why a site would NOT
want remote people to have admin rights, but I am not aware of the
reasons FOR granting these privileges. So, speak up!!
LHCb was asked to provide more information on exactly what they wanted
to change, so the impact could be assessed.
JT
|