Jeremy et al,
I also suggested to Jens that January is much better than December.
I have asked for the WLCG SHA-2 readiness review to be looked at again at
the December GDB.
Regards
Dave
------------------------------------------------
Dr David Kelsey
Particle Physics Department
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Chilton, DIDCOT, OX11 0QX, UK
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel: [+44](0)1235 445746 (direct)
Fax: [+44](0)1235 446733
------------------------------------------------
On 27/11/2013 06:36, "Jeremy Coles" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Dear All,
>
>I had unintentionally responded off-list but so that everyone is aware of
>my own response as one of those suggesting a further delay might be
>sensibleŠ.
>
>>> 4. If we need to postpone we will most likely postpone till Jan., so as
>>> to avoid changing in mid December.
>> I've got a few requests that we postpone, so I am happy to take this
>> into account.
>
>"In some ways it is good to press ahead, but I would note the need for
>some caution here. Please take a look at these notes from the WLCG ops
>coordination meeting last week:
>https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LCG/WLCGOpsMinutes131121#SHA_2.
>
>The points that have me a little concerned:
>"OSG sites that need to upgrade include BNL and FNAL"
>"by Dec 1 the WLCG infrastructure is expected to be mostly ready" -
>mostly means not entirely!
>"it is unlikely for SHA-2 certs to appear still this year" - so the
>expectation is that CAs will not move yet
>"a VOMS-Admin test setup has been successfully loaded with the VOMRS data
>of ALICE" Š which may imply it hasn't been done for LHCb, ATLAS or CMS.
>Remember VOMRS is not SHA-2 compliant.
>
>Unless there is a pressing need for SHA-2 in December, I think we should
>recheck a few things to ensure we do not end up being caught out."
>
>It was my conclusion that we (from a WLCG/EGI perspective) may not want
>to switch ahead of other countries when things are not entirely ready. In
>January I believe many CAs are intending to move and then there will be
>increased pressure within the community to have things fixed quickly. I
>agreed with Jens though that we do not want to put things off much longer!
>
>Jeremy
--
Scanned by iCritical.
|