Hi Robert,
The problem was that at least for some VOs, the users found that they
couldn't login with a new 2B certificate, so the Admin will at least
have to update that.
Cheers,
Daniela
On 24 May 2012 15:20, Robert Frank <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Alessandra,
>
> you are confusing the membership expiration with the requirement for a user
> to sign the VO's AUP (once a year by default).
>
> membership expiration:
> By default a new user's membership expires after a year unless it's being
> extended by a VO admin. A VO admin can't bulk-extend the membership
> expiration. This relates to the email I sent out 2 weeks ago.
> The deadline for this will kick in today afternoon, so if VO admins haven't
> extended their users' membership more emails will be send out this evening.
>
> sign the VO AUP:
> A user is required to sign the AUP of the VO:
> - when he requests membership
> - when the AUP is changed by a VO admin
> - after a time period which can be defined by the VO admin on the AUP page
> (default 365 days).
> The sign AUP emails have been sent to users who were already members when I
> upgraded the server a year ago.
> Dealing with those requests doesn't involve a VO admin, users can do that
> themselves. The main problem is that the links in the emails were wrong. If
> it wasn't for that many users could have just clicked on the link and signed
> the AUP.
> I have changed the expiration date of those requests to the 1st of June.
> I'm still testing it this extension is going to work (it's hard to predict
> how the software is going to react to the changes I've made, I haven't
> written it).
> Signing something on behalf of someone else is a dangerous business.
>
> Robert
>
>
> On 24/05/12 14:29, Alessandra Forti wrote:
>>
>> Robert,
>>
>> a deadline of 24 hours with the wrong host name, possible problems
>> created by the change of CA dn and the fact that there is no way to do
>> the approval in batch and we have to ask you to do it anyway is not a
>> good way to do this makes me think you should approve all the
>> memberships for this time and write proper docs on how t do it (having
>> tested the procedure of course).
>>
>> As I said in the other email I thought I went through properly for
>> northgrid few weeks ago and the users are still receiving emails.
>>
>> cheers
>> alessandra
>>
>> On 24/05/2012 14:02, Robert Frank wrote:
>>>
>>> I've extended the deadline for the existing sign aup requests to the
>>> first of June. Users shouldn't get suspended if they don't sign it by
>>> 5.30pm tonight.
>>> This extension is for the existing requests only.
>>> If VO admins want to have permanent extensions to any of the request
>>> deadlines (confirmation of email address when requesting membership,
>>> sign aups) then they should contact me. I think a one week deadline
>>> for sign aup requests would be better than 24 hours.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> On 24/05/12 11:28, Sam Skipsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 24 May 2012 06:09, Ewan MacMahon<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes [mailto:TB-
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Frank
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's both. Those emails are genuine, so people will have to act on
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Or you can make the server not follow through on the threatened
>>>>> suspensions. A 24 hour deadline is acceptable for a screaming
>>>>> emergency. This is not one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I concur. This is clearly going to be disruptive to people for no good
>>>> reason, so taking action to make the VOMS servers act sensibly seems
>>>> reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ewan
>>
>>
>>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask]
HEP Group/Physics Dep
Imperial College
Tel: +44-(0)20-75947810
http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/~dbauer/
|