perfsonar development work

[Maciej Glowiak <>]

Loukik, Roman,

I agree that we don't need to deploy LS. It depends on network/domain 
administrator.

But I still think all services should have *capability* of registrating 
to LS.

I don't agree that registration is for finding data. It's more for 
finding services! LS is a kind of directory, perfSONAR phone book.

That's my understanding.

Maciej



Roman Lapacz napisał(a):
> Maciej Glowiak wrote:
> > Roman Lapacz napisał(a):
> > > Nicolas Simar wrote:
> > > > Definition of pS service
> > > > -    Protocol Standard, Syntax (grammar, binary replica of message) 
> > > > and Semantics (business logic).
> > > > o    Include LS registration,
> > >
> > > LS registration is a very useful feature but should not be necessary 
> > > to treat a service as a part of the perfSONAR. For example there 
> > > could be perfsonar infrastructure deployed in a domain without LS.
> >
> > Yes, but then we don't need LS at all.
>
> No, we need it. It's just a decision of the admin to deploy or not the LS.
>
> > If we have been developing LS for such a long time we should agree 
> > now, that all new services must have capability of registering to the 
> > LS. You don't need to use it if you don't want to do it, but if 
> > someone takes such a service and wants to run in his environment with 
> > the LS, it must support LS registration.
>
> I totally agree that the LS is very important service (one of the core 
> services) but the perfsonar infrastructure may work without this 
> service. So I'm not sure we can say that a service does not belong to 
> the perfsonar if it  does not have the registration feature.
>
> Roman